Wright Noah in LXX Offprint -Libre

This essay was published in Noah and His Book(s), edited by Michael E. Stone, Aryeh Amihay, and Vered Hillel,

copyright © 2010 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase copies of this book, call 877-725-3334 [toll-free

in North America] or 802-864-6185, fax 802-864-7626, or visit the SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org.

Noah and the Flood in the Septuagint

Benjamin G. Wright III

he story of Noah and the lood in the Septuagint (lxx) runs essentially from Gen 5:28 with the birth of Noah to the end of Gen 9. Noah and/or the lood are mentioned in several other places in the lxx, but those references do not provide any information that extends beyond what is already in the Masoretic Text (mt). If one were to make a summary statement about the lxx version of the story, one could say that the Greek translator of Genesis strives to render the Hebrew text before him with idelity and that he does not incorporate developing or existing nonbiblical traditions about Noah into his work.

Robert Hiebert characterizes the Greek translation of Genesis on both lexical and syntactical grounds as “a strict, quantitative representation of its source text,”1 a description that highlights the translator’s isomorphic approach to the process of translation and that warrants the descriptive meta-phor “interlinear,” as it is used in the New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS).2 As the term “interlinear” implies, the translator’s usual method was to translate at the level of the word or phrase and rarely at the clause or sen-tence level, resulting in a Greek that is frequently awkward and stilted, even though meaning can be wrung from it. So, to provide just one example of rigid adherence to the word level of the source text, in Gen 9:5 the mt has מיד כל from every animal.” he lxx translator, here, in fact, working below the“ ,חיהword level, renders ἐκ χειρὸς πάντων τῶν θηρίων “from the hand of all the ani-mals.” If we ignore the lxx’s plural “animals,” necessitated by the construal of as “all” rather than “every,” we see that the translator has divided the initial כלHebrew compound preposition into its constituent parts and rendered each

1. Hiebert 2007, 1. All translations of the Septuagint are taken from Hiebert’s NETS translation. For more on NETS, see the NETS website at ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/. Transla-tions of the Hebrew are from the nrsv or are adaptations of the nrsv.

2. Pietersma and Wright 2007, xiii–xx. It is important to emphasize that “interlinear” is a metaphor for the translation process, not a claim that there ever was any physical object that had the Hebrew and Greek in an interlinear relationship.

-137 -

138 NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)




separately, producing a Greek phrase that looks decidedly odd.3 Yet a transla-tor who worked in this manner, such as the one who rendered Genesis into Greek, did not always produce slavish representations of the Hebrew parent text. All one has to do is to look at the Hebrew and Greek of Genesis synopti-cally to see that the lxx translator does at times depart from his established patterns; these, of course, are oten the most interesting places to study. Even so, it is possible that some of these deviations could relect the translator’s deliberate interpretation of the source text. he presence of exegesis, however, must be demonstrated to be part of the translator’s intent at the production stage of the translation (as much as that can be determined), not a factor in its subsequent reception history.4 his situation certainly obtains in the lxx of Genesis, in which we ind mostly isomorphic representation of the Vorlage but also many variations of diferent kinds, only a few of which, however, could constitute deliberate exegesis of the source.5

When we look speciically at the story of the lood in the lxx, we can identify a number of places where the translator nuanced the Hebrew Vorlage. Most of these instances represent eforts to clarify or make sense of a text that the translator inds unclear or diicult to understand. Such cases result in a Greek translation that might not map well—grammatically, syntactically, or lexically—onto the Hebrew text, but they do not relect deliberate exegesis on the translator’s part. So, whereas the story of Noah and the lood does not ofer the kind of developments of the biblical igure known in other Second Temple Jewish texts, we still ind a number of interesting “adjustments,” we might say, to the Hebrew biblical text.

At the very beginning of the Noah story, his birth, the translator encoun-ters a diiculty. Since he transliterates the name Noah, he cannot reproduce exactly in Greek the etymological explanation of the mt, which has “And he called his name Noah [נח], saying, ‘his one will comfort us [ינחמנו] from our works and from the toil of our hands.’ ” he Hebrew play is lost in the Greek, “And he named his name Noe [Νωε], saying, ‘his one shall give us respite [διαναπαύσει] from our labors and from the pains of our hands.’ ” Moreover, the Hebrew understands the name to come from the verb נחם “to comfort,”

3. he example is taken from Hiebert 2007, 3.4. For a discussion of this problem with regard to the Septuagint, see Pietersma 2006

and Wright 2008.5. In what follows, I try to focus on those passages that have implications for the pic-

ture of Noah and the lood. here are dozens of small, and for this discussion inconsequen-tial, diferences between the mt and the lxx, and I do not treat them here. For a detailed treatment of all of the diferences, both large and small, between the mt and the lxx, see Wevers 1993, 72–126. A more general list, without much detailed comment, is given in Lewis 1968, 82–92.

WRIGHT: NOAH AND THE FLOOD IN THE SEPTUAGINT 139




whereas the Greek correctly seems to presuppose a hiphil of the verb נוח. Unfortunately, we cannot know for certain if the translator had a parent text of ינחנו or if he arrived at this etymology on his own.6

Genesis 6:1–4 establishes the reasons for God’s decision to destroy the earth, and while not directly about Noah, two observations seem worthwhile here. First, in verse 3, the Hebrew has God, due to the illicit mating between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men,” decide to reduce the span of human lifetimes to 120 years: “My spirit shall not abide in humankind [באדם] forever, for they are lesh; their days shall be 120 years.” he Greek makes a subtle change: ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τούτοις, “in these men.” he use of the demon-strative adjective suggests that, rather than humankind generally, the lifetimes of the illicit ofspring will be limited.7

Second, the Hebrew of 6:4 refers to two distinct groups: the Nephilim, who “were on the earth in those days”; and the ofspring of the sons of God and human women who are called “mighty men [גבורים] that were of old, warriors of renown.” he mt is not clear about where the Nephilim came from, who they were, and if they had any relationship with the “mighty men” mentioned later in the verse. he lxx resolves this uncertainty by calling both groups “giants,” thereby equating the Nephilim and the mighty men/warriors of the mt. Loren Stuckenbruck observes that the text is ambiguous about how these “giants” contribute to the story of the lood and that there might have been reason to think that some of them survived the lood. In Gen 10:8–11, Nimrod, a postdiluvian descendant of Noah’s, is said in the mt to be “the irst on earth to become a mighty warrior” (גבר). he lxx translator, apparently connecting Nimrod with the “mighty men” of Gen 6:4, renders “was the irst to be a giant on the earth.” Later, in Num 13:33, part of Caleb’s report to Moses, Caleb says, “here we saw the Nephilim.” Again, the lxx translates “giants.” In the same chapter, Nephilim get connected with the sons of Anak whom the spies also saw (see 13.22, 33[mt]), and this connection enables broader links between the Nephilim and other groups mentioned in the Bible.8 Of course, Gen 6:1–4 had a long and fascinating exegetical life in early Judaism, espe-cially in the version found in 1 Enoch.9 hus, the translator’s collapsing of two separate groups in the mt, Nephilim and “mighty men,” into the same group, “giants,” seems to relect broader exegetical traditions known to him that he incorporates into his translation, but still without extensively departing from his usual translation methodology.

6. his observation on etymology comes from Wevers 1993, 73–74.7. Wevers 1993, 77; Lewis 1968, 86.8. Stuckenbruck 2000, 356–58. 9. For a more extensive study of the myth contained in Gen 6:1–4, see Reed 2005.





When we come to the beginning of the lood narrative proper, the translation exhibits several attempts at clariication, most of which do not substantially alter the Hebrew. Several places merit comment, however. In 6:6, the mt reports that God “repented” that he had made humans and that he was “grieved in his heart.” he lxx reduces the anthropopathism of the Hebrew by rendering “then God considered that he had made humankind on the earth, and he thought it over.” Later in verse 7, God “repented” in the mt but “became angry” in the lxx, in this case not eliminating any anthropopathism but still masking the statement that God had changed his mind about creating humans, as was made in the mt.10

he Greek text of 6:9 describes the now ive-hundred-year-old Noah as a righteous (δίκαιος) and perfect man, one who was “well pleasing to God” (τῷ θεῷ εὐρέστησεν Νωε). his Greek maps directly onto the Hebrew את־האלהים in a quantitative representation, but the Greek verb does not match התהלך־נחthe Hebrew lexically, even if it does get at the intention of the Hebrew. Here the translator probably harks back to the near context of 5:22, 24, where Enoch is said to have “walked with God” and where the translator uses the identical verb, but this lexical equivalence is more widely characteristic of the Genesis translator (cf. 17:1; 24:40 [both of Abraham]; 48:15 [Abraham and Isaac]). It seems to be a default rendering for him when used in conjunction with God.11 Verse 11 establishes a verbal contrast between the wrongdoing (ἀδικία) of humankind and the righteous (δίκαιος) man who will save humankind.

Ater God’s command to build the ark and his instructions for doing it, God says to Noah, “And for my part, see, I am going to bring the lood [τὸν κατακλυσμόν].” he presence of the article contrasts with the Hebrew, in which God warns that he will cause a lood. Apparently by the time of the translator, the story was already well known as the story of the lood, and this name is relected even in the translation.12 he mention of a “covenant” in 6:18 is the irst time the word occurs in the lxx.

Ater Noah builds the ark, God commands him to enter, and the Hebrew, followed by the Greek, notes that it was in the six-hundredth year of Noah’s life that the lood waters began. he Hebrew speciically notes that it was the second month and the seventeenth day when the rain came, but the Greek

10. Wevers 1993, 79–80.11. In only one case is the Hebrew verb not rendered this way in Greek, 13:17, but this

verse is not about “walking” with God but “passing through” the land. One could specu-late about the reasons for this equivalence. Perhaps the translator wanted to reduce the anthropomorphic implications of “walking with God,” or perhaps he was trying to make the Hebrew idiom more transparent to the Greek reader, making it clear why these charac-ters deserved special favor from God.

12. Wevers 1993, 85.

WRIGHT: NOAH AND THE FLOOD IN THE SEPTUAGINT 141




speciies the twenty-seventh day of the second month. Here the Greek trans-lator seems to reveal a penchant for calendrical order. It is important to note, however, that we ind no evidence that the translator imports into the Noah story broader controversies about calendar, that is, solar versus lunar, such as we encounter elsewhere in early Judaism.13 He does know, however, that in 8:14 the earth is dry in the second month and the twenty-seventh day, a year later. He thus alters the initial date so that the period from the beginning of the rains to the earth becoming dry extends for exactly one year rather than a year and ten days.14

Ater the lood waters subside and the ark comes to rest, God commands Noah to leave the ark and, according to the mt, “Bring out with you every living thing that is with you of all lesh—birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth—so that they may abound on the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply on the earth.” he lxx says essentially the same thing, except for two crucial diferences. he translator omits “they may abound,” and then he construes the inal two verbs as imperatives, not as third-person perfects, as in the mt—a perfectly legitimate way to read the consonantal text.15 he result, however, is a divine command that mirrors the one given to the irst two people in Gen 1:28, “increase and multiply on the earth.”16 he disembarkation of Noah, his family, and all the animals from the ark con-stitutes a new creative moment, one that will eventuate in a repopulation of the earth with all its various forms of life. he appearance of these same two imperatives just a bit later in 9:1 reemphasizes this second creation, especially since in the lxx the entire command repeats verbatim that given to Adam and Eve in 1:28: “Increase and multiply, and ill the earth and subdue it.” he Hebrew, by contrast, says, “Be fruitful and multiply, and ill the earth,” and it lacks the inal command to subdue the earth. In the lxx Noah has become a new Adam.17

Ater the lood narrative comes the story of Noah’s drunkenness. he lxx represents the Hebrew closely. In one place, however, the lxx might be inter-preted as being a bit more condemnatory of Noah’s behavior than the mt. In 9:24 the Hebrew notes simply that “Noah awoke [ייקץ] from his wine.” he lxx, on the other hand, reports that Noah “sobered up” (ἐξένηψεν) from his

13. On calendrical issues, see Nadav Sharon and Moshe Tishel’s “Distinctive Tradi-tions about Noah and the Flood in Second Temple Jewish Literature” in this volume.

14. Wevers 1993, 93.15. Ibid., 109.16. he lxx also interprets the irst verb of the pair in Hebrew, פרו “be fruitful,” with

αὐξάνεσθε “increase.”17. Cf. 4 Ezra 3:10–11.





wine. John William Wevers interprets this verb as indicting Noah’s behavior more directly than the mt, but it could just as easily be said that, by using this verb, the translator is playing out the implications of the story as he reads it in the mt.18 Even if it is not an indictment, however, at the very least the Greek translator, by not using some verb for awakening, makes explicit the Hebrew idiom.

Looking back at the lxx’s story of Noah and the lood, given the meth-odological caveats I noted earlier, we see that the translator has really not taken any great liberties with the Hebrew text. He clariies, explains a bit, but ultimately tries to give a faithful rendering of the Hebrew text. he real devel-opment of the igure of Noah will take place elsewhere in the Jewish literature of the period.

he preserved fragments of Aquila, the so-called heodotion, and Sym-machus do not add much to the discussion. As one might expect, Aquila moves in the direction of an even more rigid representation of the Hebrew text. So, for example, in Aquila’s Greek text Noah “walks” with God (περιπατέω), a more literal representation of the Hebrew. He preserves the distinction of the Nephilim and the warriors/heroes of Gen 6:4. In addition, he etymolo-gizes both names, translating Nephilim by ἐπιπίπτοντες, as if the name came from the root נפל, and rendering the word for heroes, גבורים, as δυνατοί. Little remains of heodotion, and what is available does not reveal much about the translation of the Noah story. Finally, the extant fragments attributed to Sym-machus demonstrate the most willingness to try to get at the sense of the Hebrew, and in some cases one might argue for deliberate exegesis. So, for example, the בני־אלהים of 6:4 become in Greek οἱ υἱοὶ τῶν δυναστευόντων, “sons of those who have dominance,” a rendering that might relect an exe-getical interpretation. On the other hand, just as in the lxx where the use of “to be well pleasing” to God looks like an attempt to get at the gist of “walking with God,” Symmachus’s translation, ἐπηκολούθησεν, “he followed,” seems to have the same intent.19

18. Wevers 1993, 124. 19. Lewis 1968, 90–92, labels as “interpretation” several passages attributed to Sym-

machus that are like this one. But he deines interpretation as “eliminating obscurities, avoiding anthropomorphisms that were ofensive to its Greek speaking reader, and at times rendering a diferent text from the present MT” (92). Indeed, even these three translation strategies are of diferent orders, and I would hesitate, for instance, to call rendering a text diferent from mt “interpretation.”

Documents

Wright Noah in LXX Offprint -Libre