The Polak and Marquis CATSS Study:
Emanuel Tov and Robert Kraft co-directed a project for the creation of a
database designed to allow the study of the Septuagint with the aid of
computer technology. The project was known as “Computer Assisted Tools
for Septuagint Studies”, or CATSS.11Tov, E. and Kraft, R.eds . Computer Assisted Tools for Septuagint Studies
(CATSS): A computerized data base for Septuagint studies: the parallel
aligned text of the Greek and Hebrew bible . United States: Scholars
Press, 1986. The database contains “the major types of data needed
for the study of the Septuagint (LXX) and its relation to the Masoretic
Text (MT) … in particular … translation techniques,
variant readings, grammar, and vocabulary of the LXX.”22Polak,
F. and Marquis, G. A Classified Index of the Minuses of the
Septuagint: Part 1: Introduction . Tov, E. ed. Stellenbosch.
Cape Town. 2002, Preface. Polak and Marquis in 2002 used the CATSS
database to produce a comprehensive analysis of the “minuses”
exhibited by the LXX of the Pentateuch when that text is compared to the
MT. A “minus” in formal terms is found “if a given element is present
in the MT but is lacking” in another text form.33Polak and
Marquis. Introduction. p 7 In regard to a comparison between texts in
different languages, such as the MT and the LXX, though, there are two
possible explanation for variances. It is possible that the Hebrew from
which the Greek was translated did not include the element that appears
to be a minus. It is also possible that the apparent minus simply
reflects the choice made by a translator. While the data available in
the study by Polak and Marquis does not include the Joshua and Ezekiel
instances in our study, it does provide a means to analyze the instances
in those books. And an analysis that is in part mechanical should help
avoid potential bias. On the other hand, the output of database
manipulation is dependent on the accuracy of both the database itself
and the method of its manipulation. What does the CATSS database tell us
when it is subjected to the analysis of minuses by Polak and Marquis?
First, CATSS finds the entire בעצם היום הזה phrase to be lacking in the
LXX of Exod 12:41. In this instance, it supports all our previous
analyses. In five other instances, the CATSS analysis identifies the עצם
element of our phrase as a minus; that is, it finds that the word עצם
was not in the text from which the LXX was translated. Those five
instances are shown in Table 3.
Table 3: Instances Identified by CATSS as “Minuses” in the LXX44Polak, F. and Marquis, G. A Classified Index of the
Minuses of the Septuagint: Part II: The Pentateuch . Tov, E.ed. Stellenbosch. Cape Town. 2002. Preface.
MT Verse LXX Translation Indicated Hebrew TextPage 55Indicates page number in Polak and Marquis Part
II.
Gen 7:13 εν τη ημερα ταυτη היום הזה 9
Exod 12:17 εν γαρ τη ημερα ταυτη היום הזה 160
Exod 12:51 εν τη ημερα εχεινη היום הזה 160
Lev 23:21 τατην την ημεραν היום הזה 192
Deut 32:48 εν τη ημερα ταυτη היום הזה 338
While the Polack-Marquis study does not address the other instances of
our study directly, it provides interesting evidence. For example:
- Polak-Marquis does not identify a minus in any of the three Leviticus
verses that detail the requirements of the Yom Kippur observance. That
suggests that the CATSS database does have the עצם element in
the MT of Lev 23:28–30. But the LXX text of our phrase in each of
those verses is the simple: τη ημερα ταυτη. It does not seem
reasonable that the translator of Leviticus would use that translation
where the MT did include עצם but essentially the same phrase;
that is, τατην την ημεραν in Lev 23:21, where עצם is identified as a
minus.
- Polak-Marquis does not identify a minus in either of the two verses
that frame the text of the Abrahamic circumcision event: Gen 17:23 &
26. The LXX in both cases is εν τω χαιρω της ημερα εχεινης. If the MT
contains עצם in those verses—that is, if there is no minus—we must
ask where the word עצם is reflected in the Greek. Since we have the
word εχεινη in Exod 12:51, which does exhibit a minus, the only
“new” element in the Greek phrase in Gen 17:23 & 26 is the word
χαιρω, meaning “time,” which we would not expect to represent the
Hebrew עצם.66We do find עצם paralleled by the Aramaic זמן or,
time, in the later Targum Neofiti, discussed below. How is
it that there is no minus in these cases?
- While Polak-Marquis does not extend to the book of Joshua, we can
observe that the LXX of Joshua 5:11, εν ταυτη τη ημερα, is the clear
equivalent of the LXX of both Deut 32:48 and Gen 7:13, which read εν
τη ημερα ταυτη, both of which are identified as representing minuses
with respect to עצם. If there is a minus in those two cases, we would
expect there to be one in Joshua also.
- Similarly, Polak-Marquis does not extend to Ezekiel, but we can
observe that in Ezek 40:1, the LXX has εν τη ημερα εχεινη which is
identical to the passage in Exod 12:51, which is identified as
exhibiting a minus. That suggests that the Ezekiel 40:1 instance would
also exhibit a minus.
In each of the five cases where the Polak-Marquis analysis finds that
the LXX exhibits a minus relative to the MT, the balance of the phrase;
that is, היום הזה, is shown as present in the MT. And, as we have seen
above (see Case 2), that phrase, lacking the עצם term, is translated in
exactly the same way as some of our instances that do include עצם.
Mechanical analyses do protect against bias but, by their nature, they
are liable to miss unusual cases and our set of eighteen MT instances
where עצם and יום are associated represent a systematically unusual
case. Raising questions about a small number of the many thousands of
conclusions the Polak-Marquis study presents is not intended to impugn
either its quality or its value, or the quality of the CATTS database.
In this specific case, though, the output of the study does seem
inconsistent. If it is true that, in the case of the five instances
specifically cited as minuses (six, if we include Exod 12:41), the text
from which the LXX was translated did not include the term עצם, both
logic and comparison of those instances to others would suggest that
most, and perhaps all, of the other instances were also lacking that
term. And that does seem to be likely. We can interpret the output of
the Polack-Marquis study as explicitly supportive of our analysis in the
six cases cited and as generally or implicitly supportive overall.
Next, we want to avoid the possibility that a decision to look only at
instances of עצם that appear in the Pentateuch, Joshua, and Ezekiel
might cause us to miss an important treatment of the word in the other
books of the Hebrew Bible. So, we will now review all instances of עצם
in the MT other than those included in Table 2 and the eighteen
that are our subject. For convenience, the results will be presented at
the level of the book, rather than the verse.
Table 3: Instances of עצם in Other Books of the Hebrew Bible
Categorized by LXX Translation Approach77For example, this table
indicates that there are 2 instances of the Hebrew עצם in the book of
Judges, both of which are clearly translated in the LXX using forms of
the Greek word meaning bone . In Isaiah, there are 3 instances
clearly meaning bone , 5 that have meanings of strength,
might, power or a large number , 2 have the unusual meaning ofclosing the eyes , and 1 has the unusual and less clear meaning
of your counsels .
Clear Greek Translation as: Unclear/Unusual:
Book Bone s, p, m, n (1) Other
Judges 2
1 Samuel 1
2 Samuel 10
1 Kings 4
2 Kings 7
Isaiah 3 5 3
Jeremiah 7 3
Joel 4
Amos 2 2
Micah 2 2
Nahum 1
Habakkuk 1
Zechariah 1
Psalms 16 10
Proverbs 3 2 2 1
Job 10 2 2
Lamentations 3 1
Ecclesiastes 1
Daniel 5
1 Chronicles 2 1
2 Chronicles 1
Totals 75 37 4 8
Meanings including forms of s trength, p ower,m ight, or n umerous/multitude.
In Table 2, which presented the translation approach to the Hebrew עצם
in the LXX Pentateuch, Joshua, and Ezekiel we found that in 112 cases of
122, the LXX rendering was clear and common. The Greek words used to
render the Hebrew were unambiguous and reflected the most common
meanings of the Hebrew. In the analysis in Table 3, we looked at the
instances of the Hebrew עצם in all the other books of the Hebrew Bible
to confirm that limiting the analysis in Table 2 did not cause us to
miss an important systematic pattern. It did not. There is nothing
unusual; certainly, nothing systematically unusual; in the LXX treatment
of עצם in any of the books of the Hebrew Bible, except in the
eighteen cases we are studying where there is an association between עצם
and יום.
Evidence from the Targums :
The Septuagint was the earliest translation from the Hebrew, but it was
not the only early translation. The Aramaic Targum translations were
made in the rabbinic period, and they were the product of knowledgeable
Jewish translators working from the Masoretic Text. We know those
translators faced the problem of rendering into Aramaic the unusual
phrases in which the Hebrew עצם is associated with the Hebrew יום. Their
solutions to the problem provide valuable insight. The Targums that are
of specific interest to us are those whose aim was the literal
reproduction of the texts of the Pentateuch and Prophetic books. For the
Pentateuch, Targum Onkelos is the most common, and for the
Prophetic books, Targum Jonathan is the standard text. Those
texts represent a version of Aramaic that Flesher and Chilton term
Jewish Literary Aramaic (JLA) and they were the versions accepted by the
medieval Jewish commentators.88Paul V. M. Flesher and Bruce
Chilton. The Targums: A Critical Introduction . Baylor
University Press. Waco, TX. 2011. p 9 Another dialect of Aramaic,
Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (JPA), is represented in Targum
Neofiti , which translates the entire Pentateuch. So, in Onkelosand Neofiti we have two Aramaic versions of the same Hebrew text
of the Pentateuch, giving us two different rabbinic views from the early
rabbinic period.
There is a clear and common Aramaic word for “bone,” i.e., גרמא, and
its meaning is familiar from uses such as “bone of my bones” in Gen
2:23; in references to the bones of the Passover sacrifice in Exod 12:46
and Num 9:12; and, in the account of the prophet’s vision of the “dry
bones” in Ezek 37. But that is not the word the authors of the Targums
use in the locations where the MT has the word עצם in the phrases of
interest to us. In both Onkelos and Jonathan , the same
Aramaic phrase is used consistently and exclusively to render the Hebrew
בעצם היום הזה. The Aramaic is בכרן יוםא הדין. The Aramaic
parallels of the variants of the phrase follow the same pattern. Where
the MT has עד עצם היום הזה the Targums have עד בכרן יוםא הדין and in
Ezek 24:2, the direct object marker את is replaced by the equivalent
Aramaic ית.
Not only is the Aramaic כרן the consistent parallel to the Hebrew עצם in
each of the eighteen cases under study; it is unique to those eighteen
cases. It is found nowhere else in the Aramaic text except in two
instances in which it is used as a proper name. The Targum translators,
faced with the problem of rendering a Hebrew word that had a clear and
common meaning, but one that was unusual in the specific context, chose
to use an Aramaic word that did not have a clear and
common meaning. Later Aramaic dictionaries find meanings for כרן but
those meanings do not come from the use of that word in Targum
translations. Jastrow, for example, gives “roundness, fullness,
essence” as meanings for כרן.99We can find some support for
those understandings by looking at other words that share the same
consonants. He also notes that כרן יומא is the Aramaic equivalent of
בעצם היום and that it can be understood as “the very day.” I will
address dictionary issues more fully below but will note here only that
Jastrow seems to have constructed his dictionary entry in this case more
from Hebrew translation history than from Aramaic evidence.
Ramban tells us centuries later that he had seen a version ofOnkelos in which the word appears as קרן rather than כרן. That
does have a clear and common meaning, i.e., horn, corner, projection,
ray. Ramban argues that the two words mean the same thing; that כרן
means the same thing as קרן and so he can avoid the issue of the unusual
word. Regardless, it is clear and interesting that the translators ofOnkelos and Jonathan seem to have selected an Aramaic word
for which we have no contemporaneous evidence of meaning, to use in
rendering our eighteen instances. The Aramaic phrase directly parallels
the Hebrew, and it includes both the word for day and the word
uniquely chosen to translate the Hebrew עצם when it is associated with
the word יום.
Targum Neofiti presents a very different Aramaic equivalent of
the עצם phrases. Like Onkelos , it is a translation of the
Pentateuch only, and like Onkelos it includes clear parallels to
each of our subject phrases. But unlike Onkelos , Neofiti’stranslation is not the same in all eighteen cases. Its approach is
consistent, but its actual language varies; not dramatically, but still
obviously. Where Onkelos and Jonathan use כרן as their
parallel to עצם, Neofiti uses זמן, which has the same meaning in
Aramaic as it does in Hebrew, i.e., time , or a specified
time. The phrase as it appears in Neofiti’s Genesis 7:13, for
example, is בזמן יומא הדין. There are several variations on that
phrase in Neofiti ,1010בזמן יומא דין, בזמן יומא הדן, זמן
יומא הדין, הכזמן יומא הדין, כזמן יומא הדין, כזמן יום צומה but all
include separate words that directly and clearly parallel עצם and יום.
And, lest there be any doubt about the Hebrew source, in two instances,
Gen 7:13 & 26, the manuscript of Neofiti provides an actual
translation note, in the scribe’s text itself, informing the reader that
בזמן יומא is the translator’s rendering of בעצם היום. The Hebrew
phrase is given as a note in the body of the Aramaic text.1111The
text I refer to is a photocopy of the hand-lettered Neofitiscroll held in the Vatican library.
The differences in Neofiti’s translations do not materially
affect meaning. In the case of Lev 23:29, though, the “day” referenced
is not described by הדין as it is elsewhere, but rather by צומא,
specifically identifying the day—Yom Kippur—as a fast day. The key
distinction for our purposes between the Targums written in Jewish
Literary Aramaic and Targum Neofiti , is that Neofiticonstructs its translation of the עצם phrase around an Aramaic word that
is both common and clear.
The key distinction between the LXX translations and the Targum
translations is that the Targums provide direct parallels for the word
עצם whereas the LXX does not. The differences between theOnkelos/Jonathan use of כרן and Neofiti’s use of זמן is an
interesting study in itself, but the fact that both are direct
renderings of the Hebrew עצם is unambiguous. The evidence from the
Targums suggests that the translators of the LXX did not work
from a Hebrew text that included the word עצם in the eighteen verses
that are our subject.
There is another translation from roughly the same period as the Targums
that we should consider also, and its evidence is less straightforward.
The Peshitta is an important translation from the Hebrew to the
Syriac dialect of Aramaic made in the first centuries CE. Tov says that
its Hebrew source was “close to MT, although reflecting more variants
than the Targumim.”1212Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew
Bible, 152 Flesher and Chilton conclude that its source was
proto-MT.1313Flesher and Chilton, The Targums, 356 The word
peshitta means “simple,” which is understood to convey an idea similar
to that of the Latin Vulgate. That is, it intended to be a plain and
understandable version of the text. The translation of the individual
books was done “at different times by different authors … using
different translation approaches.”1414Flesher and Chilton, The
Targums, 357 But the Peshitta phrases that are parallel to the
Hebrew עצם phrases are very close to being uniform. In twelve of the
fourteen instances of the Hebrew בעצם היום הזה the Peshitta gives
the Syriac בה ביומא הנא,1515For convenience I do not use the
Syriac script. which is specific and emphatic but lacks a word
directly corresponding to עצם. In one additional case the difference is
inconsequential. In the three עד עצם variants the Peshitta gives clear
parallels to the Hebrew, also lacking the עצם term, with minor
differences in form.
Flesher and Chilton note that the Peshitta translators took a
generally literal approach to their renderings of the Hebrew text but
that, in seeking clarity, they used substitution, omission, addition,
transposition, and paraphrase. They find that, “the Peshitta frequently
uses omission … by simply leaving out words without making any
changes in the surrounding text.”1616Flesher and Chilton, The
Targums, 360 If the source text of the Peshitta was very close
to the MT of the first centuries CE, it almost certainly contained the
Hebrew phrases that are our subject. The Targum translators, working at
the same time, found it necessary to represent the עצם term. It seems
likely that the Peshitta translators, seeking simplicity, did not
find it necessary to do so. They retained the Hebrew references to a
specific day, and they did so with an approach that is consistent and
uniform. Allowing themselves to avoid the difficulty of providing a
direct parallel to the word עצם might have seemed a reasonable choice.
We cannot be certain, of course, but the lack of certainty from thePeshitta evidence does not diminish the strength of the evidence
from the Targums.