Category 6: Same Form/Same Function and Possible Hebrew Influence
This section provides the crux of the study, giving texts of parallel Greek and Hebrew, but the resultant Greek form is not typical in Koine usage. Surprisingly, only one infinitival form (i.e., genitive articular) and a few functions are represented, and לְ is primarily responsible for altering “regular” Greek syntax. The texts have been divided by the function of each form.
Subject
Ps 91:2–3 ἀγαθὸν τὸ ἐξομολογεῖσθαι τῷ κυρίῳ καὶ ψάλλειν τῷ ὀνόματί σου ὕψιστε τοῦ ἀναγγέλλειν τὸ πρωὶ τὸ ἔλεός σου καὶ τὴν ἀλήθειάν σου κατὰ νύκτα.
(Ps 92: 2–3) ט֗וֹב לְהֹד֥וֹת לַיהוָ֑ה וּלְזַמֵּ֖ר לְשִׁמְךָ֣ עֶלְיֽוֹן׃ לְהַגִּ֣יד בַּבֹּ֣קֶר חַסְֽדֶּ֑ךָ וֶ֜אֱמֽוּנָתְךָ֗ בַּלֵּילֽוֹת׃
The third infinitive is significant for two reasons. First, it represents a לְ-prefixed infinitive, which can function nominally, while the genitive articular infinitive cannot. If the article were absent, the function of the infinitive would parallel the other infinitives (with τό). Thus, the third infinitive seems to parallel the Hebrew as subject of the implied verb of being.
Second, the question becomes: Has the Hebrew לְ affected the translator to use the genitive article? Has its abundance of uses elsewhere “allowed” for such a grammatical irregularity? One may be tempted to answer affirmatively until he analyzes the other examples. Lamed precedes all three of the infinitives, yet the genitive article is only used once. This seems to indicate the translator consciously changed the articular form or assumed the genitive can take the same function. In either case, one cannot posit influence of לְ, because the previous two infinitives were translated with the nominative article. Thus, in the least, no Hebrew influence can be attributed here, and the Greek form may possibly be considered regular.
The LXX contains multiple similar texts, in which most of the Hebrew texts have לְ (e.g., 1 Sam 12:23; 1 Kgs 8:18; 16:31; 2 Chron 6:7; 1 Esd 5:67; Ps 126:2; Eccl 3:12 [2x]; Sir 23:27; Isa 49:6 [2x]; Jer 2:18 [2x]). The exceptions are 1 Samuel 12:23, where the genitive article translates מִן (separation), 1 Esdras 5:67, where no Hebrew original exists, Psalm 126:2, which translates a Hebrew participle, and the first example of Isaiah 49:6, which also translates מִן (comparative). My study also found the following, of which the first two have no Hebrew equivalent, the third translates לְ, and the last does not represent the Hebrew at all.
Tob 12:6 (S) ἀγαθά τοῦ εὐλογεῖν καὶ ὑμνεῖν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ.
1 Macc 14:23 ἤρεσεν τῷ δήμῳ ἐπιδέξασθαι τοὺς ἄνδρας ἐνδόξως καὶ τοῦ θέσθαι τὸ ἀντίγραφον τῶν λόγων αὐτῶν.
Mic 3:1 οὐχ ὑμῖν ἐστιν τοῦ γνῶναι τὸ κρίμα.
הֲל֣וֹא לָכֶ֔ם לָדַ֖עַת אֶת־הַמִּשְׁפָּֽט
Isa 14:31 καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν τοῦ εἶναι
וְאֵ֥ין בּוֹדֵ֖ד בְּמוֹעָדָֽיו
The Apostolic Fathers also presents one example of this function.
Ign. Rom. 1:1 ἐλπίζω ὑμᾶς ἀσπάσασθαι ἐάνπερ θέλημα ᾖ τοῦ ἀξιωθῆναί με εἰς τέλος εἶναι
The NT has four debated passages (Luke 17:1; Acts 10:25; 27:1; 1 Cor 16:4), which Burk handles by claiming the verb is impersonal and the infinitive is epexegetical, modifying the predicate adjective or temporal clause (e.g., Acts 10:25, ὡς δὲ ἐγένετο). This interpretation is possible, but one would have to demonstrate this form only appears in this way when a predicate adjective or temporal clause is also present. In addition, conclusions have to account for other examples, not just those in the NT. Of the examples provides above, only five (1 Kgs 16:31; Tob[S] 12:6; Eccl 3:12; Sir 23:27; Isa 49:6) have a predicate adjective that the genitive article could be explaining. Burk’s claim then does not seem conclusive.
The final piece of evidence to include is any examples of this phenomenon in extra-biblical literature. Predominantly, the form is absent as the subject of the sentence, but Moulton’s analysis of the papyri surfaced at least one example:
P. Oxy. 86.7 ἔθος ἐστὶν τοῦ παρασχεθῆναι … ναύτην ἕνα.
Some may not find much significance in one example from the papyri, but Moulton concludes that the genitive articular infinitive is generally rare in the papyri. The abundance of examples in the LXX and NT “illustrates … that it belongs to the higher stratum of education in the main.” Burk would list this text as epexegetical, explaining what the “custom” is. Yet, the more natural way to read the text is to provide a subject for the verb rather than assuming it to be impersonal.
A conclusion about this form as subject is difficult, for most of the LXX examples do represent a Hebrew preposition, while the form is rarely found elsewhere in Koine Greek. Thus, Robertson’s statement, “it is possible that this very common idiom in the LXX is due to the Hebrew לְ” seems credible. On the other hand, there are multiple examples where either a different preposition is used, or the “irregular” infinitives are found in books where no Hebrew equivalent is found. These and the papyrus text argue that the form did eventually assume this function, as irregular as it may seem. Therefore, I would conclude Hebraistic influence is slightly more likely for these irregular forms, introducing this use of the genitive articular infinitive to authors writing similar material (i.e., Apocrypha, NT, Apostolic Fathers), while the papyrus text demonstrates it may not be as irregular as originally thought.
Direct Object
Standard lexica do not allow for a genitive object for the Greek verbs of this section.
Ps 36:32 καὶ ζητεῖ τοῦ θανατῶσαι αὐτόν
(Ps 37:32) וּ֜מְבַקֵּ֗שׁ לַהֲמִיתוֹ
Has לְ guided the translator to insert the τοῦ where it does not belong? To answer negatively, one must find places outside of the LXX (or without Hebrew equivalent) where these types of verbs are found with a genitive object. For ζητέω, LSJ (756) only lists complements being accusative in case or infinitival. Not even other Jewish works, such as Josephus, Philo, or the Pseudepigrapha contain examples of ζητέω with a genitive infinitive. Yet, there are other passages where the Greek infinitive is simple when the Hebrew has the לְ preposition (e.g., 1 Sam 19:2; 23:10). The translators were inconsistent, but it seems more likely that the Hebrew source is somewhat responsible for the inclusion of the article.
The same type of comparison is seen in other verbs with genitive articular objects throughout the LXX, but results are not always identical.
Ps 30:14 τοῦ λαβεῖν τὴν ψυχήν μου ἐβουλεύσαντο
(Ps 31:14) לָקַ֖חַת נַפְשִׁ֣י זָמָֽמוּ
Isa 51:13 ἐβουλεύσατο τοῦ ἆραί σε
כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר כּוֹנֵ֖ן לְהַשְׁחִ֑ית
The genitive article clearly represents the Hebrew preposition, and the function is the same. LSJ (325) lists examples of the verb with the accusative, meaning “planning” or “devising,” or with the infinitive (i.e., “resolving” to do something”). The genitive case then seems foreign to the regular use of this verb. Yet, passages from books with no Hebrew original have the same collocation (e.g., 1 Macc 5:2; 9:69; 12:35, 36). Josephus even has an example of the main verb with the genitive article: ἐδόκει δ’ ὅμως καὶ τὸ βουλεύσασθαι τοῦ μὴ παραυτίκα ἀπειπεῖν ἀγαθῆς ἐλπίδος ἔχεσθαι (A.J. 8.214). This seems to indicate the Hebrew source text is not necessarily responsible for the Greek syntax.
Furthermore, several verbs from the LXX are described in LSJ as taking either an accusative or dative object or an infinitival complement. One of the most prominent verbs with this type of infinitive is προστίθημι, which frequently takes an infinitive to supply the action which is “continued,” though LSJ (1527) notes this function is only in the LXX and NT. In the Hebrew text, the parallel verb is oftenיָסַף (cf. Gen 38:26; Lev 26:18).
Exod 9:34 Φαραω … προσέθετο τοῦ ἁμαρτάνειν
וַיֹּ֣סֶף לַחֲטֹ֑א …פַּרְעֹ֗ה
Josh 23:13 οὐ μὴ προσθῇ κύριος τοῦ ἐξολεθρεῦσαι τὰ ἔθνη ταῦτα
לֹ֙א יוֹסִ֜יף יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶ֗ם לְהוֹרִ֛ישׁ את־הַגּוֹיִ֥ם הָאֵ֖לֶּה
Ps 77:17 προσέθεντο ἔτι τοῦ ἁμαρτάνειν αὐτῷ
(Ps 78:17) וַיּוֹסִ֣יפוּ ע֭וֹד לַחֲטֹא־ל֑וֹ
Cf. Ps 76:8 (MT, 77:8); Amos 7:13; Nah 1:15; Zeph 3:11.
To prove the Hebrew source text as the sole influence of the Greek syntax, one would need to demonstrate two things: no uses of this collocation in extra-biblical Greek writings and no examples of the Hebrew verb with לְ + infinitive where the Greek does not have the article or vice versa. LSJ (1527) only list two forms of προστίθημι with an infinitive (Hdt. 5.30; A.J. 19.1.8), but both are anarthrous, and neither is used in the same sense as the biblical passages.
However, the following have προστίθημι with a simple infinitive, even though the Hebrew hasיָסַף with an infinitive preceded by לְ. This does not answer how the genitive article came to appear on other examples, but if the solution were a literally segmented and represented Hebrew text, one would expect the genitive article on these forms as well.
Gen 4:2 καὶ προσέθηκεν τεκεῖν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ
וַתֹּ֣סֶף לָלֶ֔דֶת אֶת־אָחִ֖יו
Gen 44:23 οὐ προσθήσεσθε ἔτι ἰδεῖν τὸ πρόσωπόν μου
לֹ֥א תֹסִפ֖וּן לִרְא֥וֹת פָּנָֽי
Exod 9:28 καὶ οὐκέτι προσθήσεσθε μένειν
וְלֹ֥א תֹסִפ֖וּן לַעֲמֹֽד
Num 22:25 καὶ προσέθετο ἔτι μαστίξαι αὐτήν
וַיֹּ֖סֶף לְהַכֹּתָֽהּ
Deut 5:25 ἐὰν προσθώμεθα ἡμεῖς ἀκοῦσαι τὴν φωνὴν κυρίου
אִם־יֹסְפִ֣ים׀ אֲנַ֗חְנוּ לִ֠שְׁמֹעַ אֶת־ק֙וֹל יְהוָ֧ה
In addition, some texts insert the article where the Hebrew does not have לְ. One could claim translators adapted later texts to earlier examples where the genitive article was inserted, but inconsistency in translation (even with the most literal) make conclusions difficult.
Gen 8:12 καὶ οὐ προσέθετο τοῦ ἐπιστρέψαι πρὸς αὐτὸν ἔτι
וְלֹֽא־יָסְפָ֥ה שׁוּב־אֵלָ֖יו עֽוֹד
Hos 9:15 οὐ μὴ προσθήσω τοῦ ἀγαπῆσαι αὐτούς
לֹ֤א אוֹסֵף֙ אַהֲבָתָ֔ם
Amos 5:2 ἔπεσεν οὐκέτι μὴ προσθῇ τοῦ ἀναστῆναι παρθένος τοῦ Ισραηλ
נָֽפְלָה֙ לֹֽא־תוֹסִ֣יף ק֔וּם בְּתוּלַ֖ת יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל
In sum, the vast majority of examples are segmented and represented exactly for this collocation and its Hebrew counterpart. Thus, one can legitimately posit a degree of influence from the Hebrew source text, in which the translators introduced a function for the articular infinitive not found in regular Greek. On the other hand, that influence clearly did not extend to all examples.
Other verbs also belong in this discussion. For some reason, the translators felt free to introduce a genitive article, which represents the equivalent Hebrew preposition, though “regular” syntax only allows other cases or simple infinitival complements (cf. Ps 72:16 [MT, 73:16]; 77:38 [MT, 78:38]; 125:2 [MT, 126:2]; 125:3 [MT, 126:3]; Amos 4:4; 7:2; Mal 2:2). Yet, sometimes these verbs are found with “irregular” case complements in books without Hebrew original. For example, the following example uses εὐδοκέω with the genitive case.
Ps 39:14 εὐδόκησον κύριε τοῦ ῥύσασθαί με
(Ps 40:14) רְצֵ֣ה יְ֭הוָה לְהַצִּילֵ֑נִי
This collocation is also found in 1 Maccabees 14:41, 42, 47.
1 Macc 14:41 καὶ οἱ ἱερεῖς εὐδόκησαν τοῦ εἶναι αὐτῶν Σιμωνα ἡγούμενον
Ps 118:106 καὶ ἔστησα τοῦ φυλάξασθαι τὰ κρίματα τῆς δικαιοσύνης σου
(Ps 119:106) וָאֲקַיֵּ֑מָה לִ֜שְׁמֹ֗ר מִשְׁפְּטֵ֥י צִדְקֶֽךָ
This collocation also is found in other places where a Hebrew original cannot be responsible for the genitive article (e.g., 1 Macc 7:49).
Isa 5:2 καὶ ἔμεινα τοῦ ποιῆσαι σταφυλήν
וַיְקַ֛ו לַעֲשׂ֥וֹת עֲנָבִ֖ים
Isa 5:4 ἔμεινα τοῦ ποιῆσαι σταφυλήν
קִוֵּ֛יתִי לַעֲשׂ֥וֹת עֲנָבִ֖ים
For these two examples, LSJ (1103) claims the verb would normally expect an accusative noun with an infinitive. In Isaiah, there is no direct object, and the infinitive is articular. BDB (875) says the Hebrew verb קוה takes לְ before either a personal or impersonal direct object. Thus, it seems the Greek has been altered from its regular usage to reflect the Hebrew original. Yet again, the following text also contains a verb and genitive articular infinitive where only an accusative or simple infinitive is expected. The Hebrew does not have לְ, indicating the translator considered the articular form acceptable, either from previous usage or from knowledge of Greek syntax.
Mic 6:8 τί κύριος ἐκζητεῖ παρὰ σοῦ ἀλλ᾽ ἢ τοῦ ποιεῖν κρίμα
וּמָֽה־יְהוָ֞ה דּוֹרֵ֣שׁ מִמְּךָ֗ כִּ֣י אִם־עֲשׂ֤וֹת מִשְׁפָּט
In addition, extrabiblical authors sometimes used genitive articular infinitives with verbs that LSJ does not list with genitive objects. For example, Polybius has ἀφίημι with multiple genitive articular infinitives (2.68.3; 5.104.5). This argument only goes so far, as the lexeme of the verb (i.e., “permitting, releasing”) does align with the typically genitive idea of separation, Thus, complete analysis of these object infinitives is difficult, and they may provide possible examples where the Hebrew preposition caused the translator to introduce an irregular form.
Complementary
The same type of comparison can be made with other verbs which take complementary infinitives. The following passages contain two verbs (βούλομαι, δύναμαι), which frequently take simple infinitives to complete the verbal idea, but the translator has included the genitive article.
Ps 39:9 τοῦ ποιῆσαι τὸ θέλημά σου ὁ θεός μου ἐβουλήθην
(Ps 40:9) לַֽעֲשֽׂוֹת־רְצוֹנְךָ֣ אֱלֹהַ֣י חָפָ֑צְתִּי
LSJ (325) claims the Greek verb usually takes the infinitive, and when it takes a regular object, it is only accusative. How does the infinitive have the genitive article? It is possible that the translator represented לְ with the Greek article as was customary.
Yet, the following texts have the main verb with a simple Greek infinitive even though the Hebrew passage takes לְ.
Judg 13:23 (A) ἐβούλετο κύριος θανατῶσαι ἡμᾶς
חָפֵ֙ץ יְהוָ֤ה לַהֲמִיתֵ֙נוּ֙
1 Sam 2:25 ἐβούλετο κύριος διαφθεῖραι αὐτούς
חָפֵ֥ץ יְהוָ֖ה לַהֲמִיתָֽם
On the other hand, there were no examples of the verb with the genitive articular infinitive in texts where no לְ existed (including searches of Josephus, Philo, and the Pseudepigrapha). This information seems to indicate the Hebrew source was responsible for the Greek form in enough cases to posit influence of the one language on the other.
The same type of analysis is seen in δύναμαι.
Ps 39:13 καὶ οὐκ ἠδυνήθην τοῦ βλέπειν
(Ps 40:13) וְלֹא־יָכֹ֣לְתִּי לִרְא֑וֹת
Δύναμαι typically is followed by a simple infinitive, but the translator used an articular form. Furthermore, the genitive articular infinitive mirrors a לְ-prefixed infinitive in the Hebrew. Non-translated books have the same form (e.g., 1 Macc 6:27; T. Zeb. 2:5), but one could claim these contain heavy Jewish influence, while no clear examples were found in Josephus or Philo.
The translators were not completely consistent, though, as the following texts have a simple infinitive, even though the Hebrew contains the preposition (cf. Zeph 1:18; Isa 36:8).
Gen 13:6 καὶ οὐκ ἐδύναντο κατοικεῖν ἅμα
וְלֹ֥א יָֽכְל֖וּ לָשֶׁ֥בֶת יַחְדָּֽו
Exod 9:11 καὶ οὐκ ἠδύναντο οἱ φαρμακοὶ στῆναι ἐναντίον Μωυσῆ
וְלֹֽא־יָכְל֣וּ הַֽחַרְטֻמִּ֗ים לַעֲמֹ֛ד לִפְנֵ֥י מֹשֶׁ֖ה
Num 24:13 οὐ δυνήσομαι παραβῆναι τὸ ῥῆμα κυρίου
לֹ֣א אוּכַ֗ל לַעֲבֹר֙ אֶת־פִּ֣י יְהוָ֔ה
These texts make it difficult to make final conclusions, though it is possible that in the above texts, the translators maintained “regular” Greek syntax, refusing to adapt to the Hebrew form.
Evidence from biblical texts where the τοῦ/ לְequivalence is not always exact adds balance to rash conclusions. The results here then are similar to those from the direct object infinitives above.
Epexegetical Result/ Means
The final function of the genitive articular infinitive that does not seem regular (i.e., affected by the Hebrew preposition) is the epexegetical use. This function should probably be categorized under “result,” explaining what is meant by the verb. Sometimes, the infinitive provides the means by which the action is done.
Exod 9:17 σὺ ἐμποιῇ τοῦ λαοῦ μου τοῦ μὴ ἐξαποστεῖλαι αὐτούς
לְבִלְתִּ֖י שַׁלְּחָֽם עוֹדְךָ֖ מִסְתּוֹלֵ֣ל בְּעַמִּ֑י
Ps 30:3 γενοῦ μοι εἰς θεὸν ὑπερασπιστὴν καὶ εἰς οἶκον καταφυγῆς τοῦ σῶσαί με
(Ps 31:3) הֱיֵ֤ה לִ֙י׀ לְֽצוּר־מָ֭עוֹז לְבֵ֥ית מְצוּד֗וֹת לְהוֹשִׁיעֵֽנִי
Ps 36:34 καὶ ὑψώσει σε τοῦ κατακληρονομῆσαι γῆν
(Ps 37:34) וִֽ֭ירוֹמִמְךָ לָרֶ֣שֶׁת אָ֑רֶץ
Cf. Exod 8:29 (MT, 8:25); Ps 77:18 (MT, 78:18); 110:6 (MT, 111:6).
Some of these references could be actual result (e.g., Ps 36:34), but the possibility of their functioning differently demands their inclusion. Votaw includes the following, most of which represent a Hebrew form with לְ (Gen 3:22; 19:19; 47:29; Judg 8:33; 1 Sam 14:34; 1 Kgs 11:33; 2 Kgs 11:17; 21:16; 2 Chron 6:23; 1 Macc 3:29; Jer 11:5; 36:10, 11; Bar 2:3). Allen concludes for this structure, the use “has been largely affected by Hebraistic influence, though it may not have been due merely to the effort of the translator to reproduce Hebrew with the infinitive, but may have been used in the speech of the Alexandrian Jews.”
The following texts support his conclusion, in that the Hebrew does not have לְ, and some (e.g., Gen 47:29) even have a finite verb that the LXX has represented with a genitive articular infinitive. In addition, the apocryphal texts (e.g., 1 Macc 3:29) that do not translate a Hebrew text support the notion that this function did not result solely from a literal translation technique.
Gen 31:20 ἔκρυψεν δὲ Ιακωβ Λαβαν τὸν Σύρον τοῦ μὴ ἀναγγεῖλαι αὐτῷ
וַיִּגְנֹ֣ב יַעֲקֹ֔ב אֶת־לֵ֥ב לָבָ֖ן הָאֲרַמִּ֑י עַל־בְּלִי֙ הִגִּ֣יד ל֔וֹ
Gen 47:29 ποιήσεις ἐπ᾽ ἐμὲ ἐλεημοσύνην καὶ ἀλήθειαν τοῦ μή με θάψαι ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ
וְעָשִׂ֤יתָ עִמָּדִי֙ חֶ֣סֶד וֶאֱמֶ֔ת אַל־נָ֥א תִקְבְּרֵ֖נִי בְּמִצְרָֽיִם
Judg 8:33 ἔθηκαν ἑαυτοῖς τῷ Βααλ διαθήκην τοῦ εἶναι αὐτοῖς αὐτὸν εἰς θεόν
וַיָּשִׂ֧ימוּ לָהֶ֛ם בַּ֥עַל בְּרִ֖ית לֵאלֹהִֽים
1 Macc 3:29 κατεσκεύασεν ἐν τῇ γῇ τοῦ ἆραι τὰ νόμιμα
Furthermore, Votaw lists the following texts with simple infinitives for the same function, even though the Hebrew form has לְ: Gen 17:7; 24:48; Num 14:36; Deut 20:19; 1 Kgs 2:4; 2 Chron 22:7; Jer 51:7, 17, 25 (MT, 44:7, 17, 25). The translators’ inconsistency allows for “Hebraistic influence,” but these other forms deny one from forcing this conclusion in every case.
Allen rightly concludes that this function is not found in Polybius, but there are examples in other texts where a genitive articular infinitive seems to further explain the action of the verb. The first two are most significant, since they come from secular Koine texts.
P. Oxy. 1295.4 ἐγὼ οὐκ ἐμιμησάμην σε τοῦ ἀποσπᾶν τὸν υἱόν μου
(c. 2nd cent.) I did not imitate you to take away my son
Diod. Sic. 1.5.2 τοὺς δὲ διασκευάζειν εἰωθότας τὰς βίβλους ἀποστρέψαι τοῦ λυμαίνεσθαι τᾶς ἀλλοτρίας πραγματείας
To clarify instrumental sense of the articular infinitive in Diodorus, the LOEB translation says “to make their books by compilation, from mutilating works of which they are not the authors.” Thus, these people would basically plagiarize and comprise their books by bringing together parts of other works.
There are also two possible examples from the OT Pseudepigrapha and two from the Apostolic Fathers, in which genitive articular infinitives may provide the means of performing the action.
T. Jud. 13:1 φυλάξατε πάντας τοὺς λόγους μου, τοῦ ποιεῖν τὰ δικαιώματα κυρίου
Pss. Sol. 2:8 ὅτι πονηρὰ ἐποίησαν εἰς ἅπαξ τοῦ μὴ ἀκούειν
1 Clem. 13:1 ὁ καυχώμενος ἐν κυρίῳ καυχάσθω τοῦ ἐκζητεῖν αὐτόν
Did. 10:5 μνήσθητι κύριε τῆς ἐκκλησίας σου τοῦ ῥύσασθαι αὐτὴν ἀπὸ παντὸς πονηροῦ
In this second text, the “delivering” cannot be the object of the main verb, for “church” serves that function. The infinitive then either explains what is meant by the Lord’s “remembering,” or provides the result of the main verb and belongs in the following section. Either way, the genitive articular infinitive carries a function not usually associated with it.
Therefore, this infinitival form is found in extrabiblical (and even secular) Koine literature with a similar semantic function. Coupled with the inconsistent translation technique in the LXX, this evidence argues for a regular, yet rare, use of the genitive articular infinitive in this way. That is, לְ in the Hebrew texts may have affected the frequency of the Greek form, but it most likely did not introduce an irregular function for this form.
Actual/ Hypothetical Result
One final category deserves discussion, for Votaw and Allen claim the genitive articular infinitive can provide either the actual or hypothetical result in the LXX. The main difference between the two is whether the action of the infinitive has occurred or not, for which reason I have combined these categories. They list the following references, most of which parallel a form with לְ: Gen 16:2; 19:20; Exod 7:14; 14:5; Lev 4:3; 26:44; Deut 8:11; Ruth 2:10; 1 Sam 15:26, 29; 1 Kgs 2:27; 18:9; 2 Kgs 5:7; 2 Chron 32:11; 33:9; 1 Esd 8:76; 1 Macc 14:36; 15:25; Ps 104:25; 118:5; 140:4; Sir 42:1; 44:8; Jer 7:30; 11:17. The problem is that the function is not in Polybius, causing scholars to see direct Hebrew influence.
In opposition to such a conclusion are the following texts, where the genitive article precedes the Greek infinitive, but the Hebrew does not contain a לְ-prefixed form. These supplement those examples found in non-translated books (e.g., 1 Macc 14:36; 15:25).
Gen 16:2 ἰδοὺ συνέκλεισέν με κύριος τοῦ μὴ τίκτειν
הִנֵּה־נָ֞א עֲצָרַ֤נִי יְהוָה֙ מִלֶּ֔דֶת
The genitive article works in agreement with the separation idea of the main verb, but the sense of the infinitive is still result. In contrast, the Hebrew has מִן, which reflects the separation idea, but the Greek syntax is regular (cf. 1 Sam 15:26; 1 Kgs 2:27).
Exod 7:14 βεβάρηται ἡ καρδία Φαραω τοῦ μὴ ἐξαποστεῖλαι τὸν λαόν
כָּבֵ֖ד לֵ֣ב פַּרְעֹ֑ה מֵאֵ֖ן לְשַׁלַּ֥ח הָעָֽם
This text has already been listed under Category 2 (see p. 5) for the translator has ignored the Hebrew participle.
Lev 4:3 ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς ὁ κεχρισμένος ἁμάρτῃ τοῦ τὸν λαὸν ἁμαρτεῖν
הַכֹּהֵ֧ן הַמָּשִׁ֛יחַ יֶחֱטָ֖א לְאַשְׁמַ֣ת הָעָ֑ם
The genitive article does translate לְ, but the Greek infinitive represents a Hebrew noun, indicating the translator considered the syntax to be somewhat acceptable (cf. Category 4, p. 7).
In addition, Votaw lists the following simple infinitives for the same function, but the Hebrew has לְ.
Exod 23:1 οὐ συγκαταθήσῃ μετὰ τοῦ ἀδίκου γενέσθαι μάρτυς ἄδικος
אל־תָּ֤שֶׁת יָֽדְךָ֙ עִם־רָשָׁ֔ע לִהְיֹ֖ת עֵ֥ד חָמָֽס
Lev 22:8 οὐ φάγεται μιανθῆναι αὐτόν
לֹ֥א יֹאכַ֖ל לְטָמְאָה־בָ֑הּ
Deut 9:8 καὶ ἐθυμώθη κύριος ἐφ᾽ ὑμῖν ἐξολεθρεῦσαι ὑμᾶς
וַיִּתְאַנַּ֧ף יְהוָ֛ה בָּכֶ֖ם לְהַשְׁמִ֥יד אֶתְכֶֽם
Deut 29:27 καὶ ὠργίσθη θυμῷ κύριος ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ἐκείνην ἐπαγαγεῖν ἐπ᾽ αὐτὴν κατὰ πάσας τὰς κατάρας
(Deut 29:26) וַיִּֽחַר־אַ֥ף יְהוָ֖ה בָּאָ֣רֶץ הַהִ֑וא לְהָבִ֤יא עָלֶ֙יהָ֙ אֶת־כָּל־הַקְּלָלָ֔ה
Jer 39:32 ὧν ἐποίησαν πικρᾶναί με
(Jer 32:32) אֲשֶׁ֤ר עָשׂוּ֙ לְהַכְעִסֵ֔נִי
In sum, the translators were inconsistent, which allows but does not demand Hebrew influence on the Greek syntax.
Furthermore, the genitive articular infinitive may not be in Polybius for result, but the Psalms of Solomon and Josephus have a few examples where this function is probable.
Pss. Sol. 7:5 καὶ οὐκ ὀργισθήσῃ τοῦ συντελέσαι ἡμᾶς
Pss. Sol. 9:4 τὰ ἔργα ἡμῶν ἐν ἐκλογῇ καὶ ἐξουσίᾳ τῆς ψυχῆς ἡμῶν τοῦ ποιῆσαι δικαιοσύνην
A.J. 8.10 ἔχε τὸν βίον ἁμαρτὼν τοῦ μηκέτ᾽ εἶναι δικαίως
The point of the Josephus text is that the addressee has offended so badly, that it would not be right for him to remain where he is. Thus, it seems the infinitive gives the result of his action. These examples do not come from secular literature, but they do provide further evidence from texts without Hebrew originals, indicating strict influence from Hebrew cannot be concluded. Furthermore, the genitive articular infinitive is often found for purpose, and sometimes the line between purpose and result is blurred (e.g., Diod. Sic. 2.17.2), and one could conclude the functional boundaries of this form were loosened because of the closely related semantic ideas.
For actual or hypothetical result, the influence of the Hebrew text seems stronger than for epexegetical result. Since the only extrabiblical examples come from within Jewish circles, and these are not extremely clear, it is easier to posit that the Hebrew OT introduced this function into Greek syntax for audiences and authors familiar with the LXX. The inconsistency of the translators forces conclusions to be tentative, but this seems likely in light of available evidence.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the purpose of this paper has been to notice if the translation of the Hebrew OT into Greek altered the syntax of the target language. If this were the case, study of NT Greek grammar would demand focus on the LXX forms and how they represented the Hebrew. Otherwise, one could posit the language of the NT aligns with regular Koine Greek, and other authors (e.g., Polybius) could inform grammatical and syntactical options in NT studies. By looking primarily at those books which have historically been labeled as most literal in their translation (while including some more freely translated works), I have been able to classify over 250 infinitives according to function and relationship to the OT text. Predominantly, the Greek constructions were said to be regular based on incomparable forms or functions. Yet, a few texts presented possible places where Hebraistic influence may be evident.
What are the true innovations in the LXX from regular Koine Greek and are these strictly based on literal translation of Hebrew? Votaw and Allen claimed three differences between the LXX and secular Koine: actual/hypothetical result (τοῦ), epexegetical result (τοῦ), and ἀπὸ τοῦ for cause or source (only in 4 Macc 6:7). With regard to object/complementary and epexegetical result infinitives, conclusions were tentative, for the LXX translators were inconsistent in their technique, even within the same book. On the other hand, a few forms in extrabiblical Greek works seemed to contain these functions, arguing for regular usage within the LXX. For subject and actual/hypothetical result infinitives, the data was also not completely one sided. These two forms more likely demonstrate Hebraistic influence which influenced later writings in Jewish and Christian circles, but forms in extra-biblical literature could be classified similarly.
In sum, one could easily focus on the few examples where the translation technique of the LXX may have influenced Greek syntax and ignore the hundreds of other places where the syntax of the LXX is perfectly adaptable to the Koine language. This emphasis seems misplaced and unfair with the data, as the two corpuses of literature are remarkably similar in syntax, and even more literal translations often altered segmentation and representation of the Hebrew form to accommodate Greek syntax.
Frequency of a form may be significantly reversed from Polybius or other Koine writers to the LXX, but the semantic force of the various constructions has not changed for the most part. Allen concludes the following regarding translated books of the LXX, “Such grammatical constructions as are used are in the main Greek, though some are found which, while Greek in form, owe their frequency of use to the influence of the Hebrew original.” Thus, Wallace’s proposal is accepted by Allen: Greek syntax has become wrapped in Semitic style, which largely affects frequency.
Therefore, a literal translation technique of the original Hebrew source cannot lay a comprehensive claim on the syntax of articular infinitives in the LXX (and subsequently the NT). Yet, the few possible examples of Hebraistic influence do not allow the scholar to ignore evidence from the LXX (and possibly the Hebrew original). For this reason, Muraoka wisely argues for a two-pronged approach. Instead of comparing the LXX solely with other Hellenistic works (cf. Deissman, Moulton, Thackeray) or only seeing Hebraistic influence in the translation (cf. Soisalon-Soininen), Muraoka says both perspectives are needed to understand how the grammar of the LXX and the NT works. Therefore, the remainder of this work emphasizes extra-biblical literature of the centuries around the time of the NT, but a study of the LXX is included to provide another voice in the discussion.
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