{"id":962,"date":"2018-02-20T16:42:07","date_gmt":"2018-02-20T16:42:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thehollyfest.org\/?page_id=962"},"modified":"2018-02-21T15:41:00","modified_gmt":"2018-02-21T15:41:00","slug":"keith-stone","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/www.thehollyfest.org\/index.php\/keith-stone\/","title":{"rendered":"Keith Stone"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Song of Moses as a test case for diachrony<\/h1>\n

This essay is a revision of a talk I gave on March 11th, 2017, at a day-long SPEL-CHS[1]<\/a> workshop held at the Sto\u00e1 tou Vivl\u00edou in Athens. I would like to thank Prof. George Babiniotis and the SPEL for the beautiful event that they arranged, and I would like to thank both Prof. Babiniotis and Prof. Nagy for the invitation to speak. The theme of the day\u2019s workshop was diachrony in the Greek language. Being not a dedicated scholar of Greek but rather a biblicist, I chose the Song of Moses in the bibical book of Deuteronomy (32:1\u201343), as a test case for turning up signs of development in the Greek language.<\/p>\n

As Profs. Babiniotis and Nagy both stressed in their own remarks, diachrony is the passing from one synchronic stage of a structure to another stage. Further, in the words of Nagy, \u201cboth synchronic and diachronic perspectives are a matter of model building<\/em>\u201d\u2014models that are to be tested against the historical reality of how linguistic evolution did in fact occur (published as Nagy 2017.03.23<\/a> \u00a7\u00a76\u201316). I will leave model building to the experts and explore raw data only\u2014that is, I will dig up the kind of historical evidence that informs the building of models. Since today\u2019s occasion is a workshop for teachers, I hope to present this evidence in a way that is useful for the classroom. To locate relevant data, I have traced the text of the Song of Moses through manuscript and printed editions in Greek. In the end, I settled on v. 18 as offering the most interesting combination of variations for today\u2019s theme. Here let me present v. 18 in both modern English (my translation from the Masoretic Hebrew) and modern Greek (Today\u2019s Greek Version):<\/p>\n

The rock who begot you, you neglected;
\nyou forgot about the god who was in labor-pains with you.<\/p>\n

\u03a4\u03bf \u0392\u03c1\u03ac\u03c7\u03bf \u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03b5 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5, \u0399\u03c3\u03c1\u03b1\u03ae\u03bb, \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03c2
\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf \u0398\u03b5\u03cc, \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03cc \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5.<\/p>\n

Deuteronomy 32:18<\/p>\n

You will notice that these two translations do not agree regarding the final phrase: \u201cwho was in labor-pains with you\u201d vs \u201c\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03cc \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u201d or \u2018the one who molded you\u2019. I will return to this problem. However, first I will proceed by presenting v.\u00a018 as it has appeared throughout the years, from the 1st century BCE through the present time. Before I even begin that, however, let me give you all a brief introduction to the Song of Moses and a sense of the context of v.\u00a018.<\/p>\n

Orientation to the Song of Moses<\/h2>\n

The Song of Moses is the first of two long poems occurring at the end of the Deuteronomy, which is the fifth book of the Hebrew Bible \/ Old Testament and the last for which tradition names Moses as author. However, it is called \u201cof Moses\u201d not because Moses is the author of the poem, according to the biblical narrative, but because God entrusted the poem to Moses on behalf of all the Israelites. The Song is 43 verses long, taking up almost the whole of ch. 32. In the preceding chapter, ch. 31, Deuteronomy gives a fittingly long introduction to this long poem, an introduction comprised of instructions that give the Song a purpose that will be fulfilled only many, many generations into the future from the point of view of the Israelites pausing at the edge of the promised land before entering. God entrusted this composition to Moses, who entrusted it to his contemporaries, who entrusted it down through the generations until it reached the future generation of Israelites that God meant it for. This predestined Song tells a narrative that goes as follows: God brought his very own people out of a wasteland and into a land of plenty; after enjoying the land\u2019s plentiful benefits, the people became thick and stupid, as the Song puts it, and directed their worship to other gods; God grew angry and reciprocated by announcing his intention to destroy his people through natural disasters and military defeat\u2014but then also announcing his decision to hold back from complete destruction, lest the nation(s) who will defeat his people believe that they are defeating God as well. Verse 18 comes in where the people\u2019s change of allegiance from God to other gods is underway: \u201cThe rock who begot you, you neglected; you forgot about the god who was in labor-pains with you.\u201d God is described as a rock, who went through the process of giving birth to his people and who was subsequently forgotten by them.<\/p>\n

One last point of introduction: rhetorically speaking, the Song is a complex interweaving of quotation, self-quotation, quotation before the fact, and hypothetical quotation\u2014a complex web that depends on and plays on both the multiplicity of speaking voices and the difference in time between the narrative setting in Deuteronomy, which is the time of Moses\u2019s last days, and the historical setting of Deuteronomy\u2019s composition\/reception, which is a period when the exile of Israelite elites to Mesopotamia is in view.<\/p>\n

Difference in time brings me back to the theme of our meeting today: diachrony, development over time, and for me, the Song of Moses as a test case for investigating this concept. I will start with diachrony with regard to language, and I will broaden the scope of my thoughts toward the end of my talk. My primary evidence, which follows, will be eight or so manuscript or print editions that attest to v. 18 of the Song.<\/p>\n

Papyrus Fouad 266<\/h2>\n

Papyrus Fouad 266 dates to the 1st century BCE and currently provides the second-oldest manuscript evidence to the text of the book of Deuteronomy. Unfortunately for our purposes today, the oldest <\/em>manuscript that attests to Deuteronomy does not contain our verse, 32:18. It is one[2]<\/a> of the scrolls found at the Dead Sea starting in 1947, and it dates to the 2nd\u20133rd centuries BCE, that is, one or two hundred years older yet.<\/p>\n

Back to Papyrus Fouad 266. Zooming in to the two lines that attest to (fragments of) Deuteronomy 32:18, we see the following characters written in what is known as uncial script, that is, all in uppercase lettering and without spaces between words:<\/p>\n

\u039d\u03a4\u039f\u039d\u0393\u0395\u039d\u039d\u0397\u03f9\u0391\u00a0\u00a0\u03a4\u0391\u03f9\u0395
\n\u0395\u03a0\u0395\u039b\u0391\u0398\u039f\u00a0\u00a0\u0395\u039f\u039d\u03a4\u039f\u039d\u03a4\u03a1\u0395<\/p>\n

From the letters of the first line, we can pick out the definite article \u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, masculine accusative singular, associated with what appears to be the masculine accusative singular aorist active participle of the verb \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ac\u03c9 \u2018I beget\u2019, that is, \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1[\u03bd]\u03c4\u03b1. It is missing only the letter \u039d at one point. This word is in turn followed by what could be the masculine singular second-person pronoun \u03c3\u03b5. Taken all together, these words can be read as a phrase: \u201cthe one who begot you.\u201d Only the initial letter N of this fragmentary line remains unaccounted for in this reading.<\/p>\n

Now for the second line. Knowing that biblical poetry operates on a basic principle of parallelism, let\u2019s reconstruct the same definite article as in the first half, \u03c4\u03cc\u03bd. It is followed by three letters \u03a4\u03a1\u0395. Let\u2019s assume for the moment that this occurrence of the definite article also introduces a participle, as in the first half\u2014in this case the participle of a verb beginning with \u03a4\u03a1\u0395: \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 and \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a4\u03a1\u0395[.\u00a0.\u00a0.]. The definite articles in both the first and second lines appear to be preceded by a word that ends in \u039d\u2014\u039d alone in the first half and \u0395\u039f\u039d in the second half.<\/p>\n

Now we are left with the letters \u0395\u03a0\u0395\u039b\u0391\u0398\u039f in the second line. We can make sense of them by postulating a following letter \u03a5, yielding \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf[\u03c5] \u2018you forgot\u2019.<\/p>\n

The letters in these two fragmentary lines can be laid out as follows for the convenience of modern readers:<\/p>\n

\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03b5\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \/\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5<\/p>\n

And here they are with the hypothesized letters inserted:<\/p>\n

\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1[\u03bd]\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03b5\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \/\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf[\u03c5]\u00a0\u00a0 \u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5<\/p>\n

The slash in the middle of the line is not original but inserted in order to facilitate comparison with other texts below.<\/p>\n

Chester Beatty Papyrus VI<\/h2>\n

Chester Beatty Papyrus VI originally contained not only the book of Deuteronomy but also the book of Numbers. This papyrus is now very fragmentary. It dates to the 2nd century CE\u2014a jump forward of two centuries or so from Papyrus Fouad 266. Here is a transciption of the relevant characters from the papyrus:<\/p>\n

\u039d\u0397\u03f9\u0391\u039d
\n\u03a4\u0395\u039b\u0395\u0399\u03a0
\n\u0398\u039f\u03a5\u0398\u035e\u03a5
\n\u03a4\u039f\u03f9\u03f9\u0395 \u039a<\/p>\n

Two letters in the third line have a line drawn above them, which indicates that they form an abbreviation. In this case, the two letters \u0398 and \u03a5, plus the overline, stand for the noun \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u2018god\u2019.<\/p>\n

In the first half of the verse, the Chester Beatty papyrus supplies the third \u039d of \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 that is missing in the Fouad papyrus, while in the second half, it supplies the \u03a5 of \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u2018you forgot\u2019 that was also missing. It is not yet clear what word(s) the letters \u03a4\u0395\u039b\u0395\u0399\u03a0, in the first half, coud be part of.<\/p>\n

Despite these evident agreements between the two manuscripts, the word \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 (in abbreviated form) presents what is likely, at this stage in my analysis, to be a variation between them. If we hypothesize, based on their comparable placement in the verse (after \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03bf\u03c5 and before the second \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd), that \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 and the letters \u0395\u039f\u039d could be differing forms of the same word, we might try filling in \u0398 as a missing first letter of \u0395\u039f\u039d in order to obtain a comprehensible word, namely, \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd \u2018god\u2019. According to this hypothesis, the Fouad papyrus would thus have, in the genitive case, the same word that the Chester Beatty papyrus has in the accusative case: \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 vs. \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd. Going further in this direction, we could propose \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 [\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a4\u03a1\u0395\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 ]\u03a4\u039f\u03a3 \u03c3\u03b5 in the second half of the verse in Chester Beatty P.\u00a0VI and \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03cc\u03bd \u03a4\u03a1\u0395[\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u039f\u039d \u03c3\u03b5] in P. Fouad 266.<\/p>\n

Here is the reading of Chester Beatty P. VI laid out for modern readers:<\/p>\n

\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \/\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03c5\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b5<\/p>\n

With compared and hypothesized letters inserted:<\/p>\n

[\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd]\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd[\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03b5]\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \/\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03c5 [\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a4\u03a1\u0395\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 ]\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b5<\/p>\n

In the following table, I begin cumulatively comparing my selected texts, highlighting some letters and words for later reference:<\/p>\n

\n

P. Fouad 266 (1st cent. BCE)
\n18.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u00a0 \u03c4\u03b1<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\/ \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5<\/u><\/p>\n

Chester Beatty P. VI (2nd cent. CE)
\n18.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd<\/u> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0 \u00a0 \u00a0\/\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5<\/u>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c2<\/u>\u00a0\u03c3\u03b5<\/p>\n

\n

Codex Vaticanus<\/h2>\n

Codex Vaticanus is a nearly complete manuscript of a Christian Bible (both Old and New Testaments) in Greek that dates to the 4th century\u00a0CE, two centuries later than Chester Beatty P. VI and approximately five centuries later than Papyrus Fouad 266. It is written in uncial letters on vellum, or prepared animal skin, and is the only non-modern text that I will cite to indicate accents. At Deuteronomy 32:18 it reads as follows:<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u0398\u035e \u039d\u0300
\n\u03a4\u00d2\u039d\u0393\u0395\u039d\u039dH\u0301\u03f9\u0391\u039d\u03a4\u00c1\u03f9\u0395\u0395\u0393
\n\u039a\u0391\u03a4\u00c9\u039b\u0399\u03a0\u0395\u03f9\u039a\u00c0\u0399\u0395\u03a0\u0395\u039b\u00c1\u0398\u039f\u03a5
\n\u0398\u035e \u03a5\u0302\u03a4\u039f\u03a5\u03a4\u03a1\u00c9\u03a6\u039f\u039d\u03a4\u00d3\u03f9\u03f9\u0395\u00b7<\/p>\n

Once again we encounter the phenomenon of abbreviated forms. The two letters \u0398 and \u039d at the end of the first line have a line drawn over them that indicates that they stand for the form \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u2018god\u2019. Likewise, the first two letters of the fourth line, \u0398 and \u03a5, stand for the form \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u2018god\u2019, just as in the Chester Beatty papyrus.<\/p>\n

Here is the text in a form that is more intelligible to the modern eye, now with a translation since we have a complete sentence (and more):<\/p>\n

\u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac \u03c3\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c2, \/ \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b5.<\/p>\n

The God who begot you, you abandoned, \/ and you forgot about the God who reared you.<\/p>\n

And here is the table of comparisons, now with three entries:<\/p>\n

\n

P. Fouad 266 (1st cent. BCE)
\n18.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u00a0 \u03c4\u03b1<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\/ \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5<\/u><\/p>\n

Chester Beatty P. VI (2nd cent. CE)
\n18.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd<\/u> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0 \u00a0 \u00a0\/\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5<\/u> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2<\/u>\u00a0\u03c3\u03b5<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Vaticanus (4th cent. CE)
\n18.\u00a0\u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c2, \/ \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5.<\/p>\n

\n

In the table just above, I am leaving space in the chronological order for readings that I will add in below.<\/p>\n

Unlike the very fragmentary attestations from the two papyri, Vaticanus preserves an entire verse here in Deuteronomy 32:18; however, this whole verse of Vaticanus matches the two papyrus readings in many respects. In fact, it will be easier to point out the differences. Vaticanus differs from the extant Chester Beatty reading by only one letter, an extra \u0395, and that difference is only a matter of alternate spellings: \u1f10\u03bd\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c2 vs. [\u1f10\u03bd\u03ba\u03b1]\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0[\u03b5\u03c2]. Vaticanus does not have that difference with the Fouad papyrus, but it does attest to the the genitive case (as does Chester Beatty P. VI) in a phrase where Fouad 266 has the accusative instead: \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b5 vs. [\u03b8]\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03ad[\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd \u03c3\u03b5]. Note that this participle is a form of \u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03c9 \u2018I rear, I foster [children]\u2019.<\/p>\n

Washington MS of Deuteronomy and Joshua<\/h2>\n

Washington Manuscript I, containing Deuteronomy and Joshua, is part of a codex made of vellum that dates to the early 5th century CE, a century later than Vaticanus. We have now come six centuries from Papyrus Fouad 266, which was our first text. The reading of the Washington MS, written in uncial letters, at Deuteronomy 32:18 is as follows:<\/p>\n

\u0398\u035e\u039d\u03a4\u039f\u039d\u0393\u0395\u039d\u039d\u0397\u03f9\u0391\u039d
\n\u03a4\u0391\u03f9\u0395\u0395\u0393\u039a\u0391\u03a4\u0395\u039b\u0395\u0399\u03a0\u0391\u03f9
\n\u039a\u0391\u0399 \u0395\u03a0\u0395\u039b\u0391\u0398\u039f\u03a5 \u0398\u035e\u03a5
\n\u03a4\u039f\u03a5\u03a4\u03a1\u0395\u03a6\u039f\u039d\u03a4\u039f\u03f9\u03f9\u0395<\/p>\n

The Washington MS has the same two abbreviations for \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 \u2018god\u2019 as Vaticanus, at the beginning of the first line and at the end of the third line. Here is a more convenient transcription, with translation:<\/p>\n

\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03b5 \u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2, \/ \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b5<\/p>\n

The God who begot you, you abandoned, \/ and you forgot about the God who reared you.<\/p>\n

\n

P. Fouad 266 (1st cent. BCE)
\n18.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u00a0 \u03c4\u03b1<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\/ \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5<\/u><\/p>\n

Chester Beatty P. VI (2nd cent. CE)
\n18.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd<\/u> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0 \u00a0 \u00a0\/\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5<\/u> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2<\/u>\u00a0\u03c3\u03b5<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Vaticanus (4th cent. CE)
\n18.\u00a0\u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c2, \/ \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5.<\/p>\n

Washington MS (early 5th cent. CE)
\n18. \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5 \u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2, \/ \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5<\/p>\n

\n

As does Vaticanus, the Washington MS also contains the whole poetic line, and it agrees entirely with Vaticanus except in the word \u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2, where there are three differences. Two are relatively minor matters of alternate spelling that likely do not even indicate a difference in pronunciation: \u1f10\u03b3<\/u>\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9<\/u>\u03c0- vs \u1f10\u03bd<\/u>\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9<\/u>\u03c0-. (Note that the Washington MS and the Chester Beatty papyrus agree on the second of these spellings: \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9<\/u>\u03c0- and [\u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1]\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9<\/u>\u03c0[-], respectively.) The third difference, however, yields a nonsensical form in the Washington MS: -\u03c0\u03b1<\/u>\u03c2 vs. -\u03c0\u03b5<\/u>\u03c2. \u1f18\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5<\/u>\u03c2 would be a second person singular indicative active aorist form, like the alternatively spelled form in Vaticanus, but \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1<\/u>\u03c2 cannot be successfully parsed. Therefore, the letter \u0391 toward the end of the word can only categorized as a spelling error.<\/p>\n

Codex Alexandrinus<\/h2>\n

Codex Alexandrinus is another nearly complete copy of a Christian Bible in Greek, containing the Old and New Testaments as well as such works as 3 and 4 Maccabees and the Odes. Like Vaticanus and the Washington MS, Alexandrinus is made of vellum, with uncial letters. It dates to the 5th century CE, that is, more or less the same time as the Washington MS. Its reading for Deuteronomy 32:18 is as follows:<\/p>\n

\u0398\u039d\u03a4\u039f\u039d\u0393\u0395\u039d\u039d\u0397\u03f9\u0391\u039d\u03a4\u0391\u03a8\u0395\u0395\u0393\u039a\u0391\u03a4\u0395\u039b\u0395\u0399\u03a0\u0395\u03f9
\n\u039a\u0391\u0399\u0395\u03a0\u0395\u039b\u0391\u0398\u039f\u03a5\u0398\u035e\u03a5\u03a4\u039f\u03a5\u03a4\u03a1\u0395\u03a6\u039f\u039d\u03a4\u039f\u03f9\u03f9\u0395<\/p>\n

And here is a more convenient transcription and translation:<\/p>\n

\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03b5 \u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c2, \/ \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b5<\/p>\n

The God who begot you, you abandoned, \/ and you forgot about the God who reared you.<\/p>\n

\n

P. Fouad 266 (1st cent. BCE)
\n18.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u00a0 \u03c4\u03b1<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\/ \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5<\/u><\/p>\n

Chester Beatty P. VI (2nd cent. CE)
\n18.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd<\/u> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0 \u00a0 \u00a0\/\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5<\/u> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2<\/u>\u00a0\u03c3\u03b5<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Vaticanus (4th cent. CE)
\n18.\u00a0\u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c2, \/ \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5.<\/p>\n

Washington MS (early 5th cent. CE)
\n18. \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5 \u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2, \/ \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5<\/p>\n

Codex Alexandrinus (5th cent. CE)
\n18.\u00a0\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5 \u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c2, \/ \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5<\/p>\n

\n

Alexandrinus has the exact same reading as the Washington Manuscript, including abbreviations, except that its scribe did not misspell \u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c2!<\/p>\n

Constantinople Torah<\/h2>\n

Now we move from manuscripts of one sort or another to printed editions. First we will consider the Constantinope Torah, so called because it was published in Constantinople, in 1547 by the Soncino family publishing house. One year earlier in 1546, they had published an edition of the Torah in which the Hebrew text was surrounded (1) by the Aramaic translation of Targum Onqelos, from about the 1st century CE, (2) by translations into the contemporary languages Judeo-Persian and Judeo-Arabic, and (3) by Rashi\u2019s commentary (which was not quite a century old at this point). Our 1547 edition substitutes Judeo-Greek and Judeo-Spanish translations for the Judeo-Persian and Judeo-Arabic translations of the 1546 edition. (As a footnote, the Judeo-Spanish language is also known as Ladino, and the Judeo-Greek language is also known as Yevanic. This term, \u201cYevanic,\u201d comes from the Hebrew word\u2014both ancient and modern\u2014for the people and the geographical area of Greece: Yavan, which is itself derived from the name Ionia\/\u0399\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1. So, the term Yevanic is a Hebrew way of saying that this community of Jews\u2014of Romaniote Jews, that is\u2014speaks Greek.) Notably, the Yevanic and Ladino translations found in the 1547 edition are written using Hebrew letters. The translations are set to either side of the Hebrew text, with Onqelos above and Rashi below. Here is a visual:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The Ladino translation is always set to the side of the Hebrew biblical text that is closest to the binding, while the Yevanic translation is set toward the outer edges of the pages. Unfortunately the copy of the Constantinople Torah to which I have access does not contain Deuteronomy, so here I am showing a passage from Exodus.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s turn to the Yevanic\u2014that is, Greek\u2014translation of Deuteronomy 32:18. Here it is as printed in the Hebrew letters of the Constantinople Torah:<\/p>\n

\u05d3\u05b4\u05d9\u05e0\u05b8\u05d8\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05b9\u05e4\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc \u05e9\u05b5\u05bc\u05c1\u05d0\u05b5\u05d9\u05b4\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05e9\u05b5\u05bc\u05c1\u05df \u05d0\u05b6\u05e7\u05b0\u05e9\u05b5\u05bc\u05c1\u05db\u05b8\u05e9\u05b5\u05e9\u05bc \u05e7\u05b5\u05d9 \u05d0\u05b7\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9\u05d6\u05b0\u05de\u05d5\u05b9\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05e9\u05bc \u05ea\u05b5\u05d0\u05d5\u05b9\u05df \u05d0\u05d5\u05b9\u05e4\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc \u05e9\u05d0 \u05e9\u05b5\u05bc\u05c1\u05d0\u05b5\u05e7\u05b4\u05d9\u05dc\u05b0\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05e4\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05e0\u05b5\u05e9\u05b5\u05bc\u05c1\u05df<\/p>\n

Transcribing those Hebrew letters yields the following, written in Greek letters:<\/p>\n

\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03b5 \u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u03be\u03b5\u03c7\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03c2 \/ \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03b5 \u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd<\/p>\n

This in turn may be translated as follows:<\/p>\n

The power that begot you, you disregarded, \/ and you forgot the God who was in travail with you.<\/p>\n

\n

P. Fouad 266 (1st cent. BCE)
\n18.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u00a0 \u03c4\u03b1<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\/ \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5<\/u><\/p>\n

Chester Beatty P. VI (2nd cent. CE)
\n18.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd<\/u> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0 \u00a0 \u00a0\/\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5<\/u> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2<\/u>\u00a0\u03c3\u03b5<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Vaticanus (4th cent. CE)
\n18.\u00a0\u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c2, \/ \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5.<\/p>\n

Washington MS (early 5th cent. CE)
\n18. \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5 \u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2, \/ \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5<\/p>\n

Codex Alexandrinus (5th cent. CE)
\n18.\u00a0\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5 \u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c2, \/ \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5<\/p>\n

Constantinople Torah (1547)
\n18. \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd<\/u> \u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03b5 \u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u03be\u03b5\u03c7\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03c2 \/ \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd<\/u> \u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03b5 \u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd<\/p>\n

\n

This Yevanic translation is approximately 1100 years later than the preceding text, Codex Alexandrinus, and the wording is very different. In fact, only the noun \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd \u2018god\u2019, the conjunction \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u2018and\u2019, and the personal pronoun \u03c3\u03b5 \u2018you\u2019 can strictly be said to reappear unchanged from any of the Greek translations noted so far. The verb \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ac\u03c9 has also appeared before, but as a participle (\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1) rather than as the finite form found here (\u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd). Further, in the first half of the verse, the noun \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd \u2018power\u2019 stands in the place of the \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd \u2018god\u2019 of the earlier translations. The Hebrew word in the Masoretic tradition at this point is \u05e6\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8 \u2018rock\u2019, and it is used to refer to Israel\u2019s deity. Presuming that the word \u05e6\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8 \u2018rock\u2019 is in the Hebrew source text of all these translations, we can say that the earlier translations removed the metaphor and named the referent: \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd \u2018god\u2019. The Constantinople Torah, on the other hand, takes the approach of translating the meaning of the metaphor: the deity is called a rock on account of being powerful, hence \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd. There are other variations as well, one lexeme being replaced with another and so on, including two new words for forgetting. One item of interest is that between the \u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u2018you forgot\u2019 of the earlier translations and the \u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03c2 \u2018you forgot\u2019 of the Constantinople Torah, one can see a reflection of the eventual replacement of \u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9 \u2018forget\u2019 with the denominative verb \u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03ad\u03c9 \u2018forget\u2019 formed from \u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u2018forgetful\u2019, which is itself derived from \u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9. Finally, note that in place of \u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03c9 \u2018I rear, I foster [children]\u2019, this translation has \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03ad\u03c9 \u2018I am in travail [of birth]\u2019. With \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03ad\u03c9, the parallelism between the two halves of v. 18 is a synonymous parallelism\u2014\u2018I engender\u2019, \u2018I am in travail [of birth]\u2019\u2014whereas with \u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03c9, the second half of the verse is rather a (temporal) progression from the first half: \u2018I engender\u2019, \u2018I rear [children]\u2019.<\/p>\n

One major grammatical\/syntactical development is the use of relative clauses where before there were modifying participles. In the translations that we have examined up to this point, the noun \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd\/\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u2018god\u2019 has been modified by a participle introduced by the definite article, once in each half of the verse: \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac \u03c3\u03b5 and \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b5 (or, evidently, \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd \u03c3\u03b5 in Papyrus Fouad 266). In the Constantinople Torah, however, \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd \u2018power\u2019 and \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd \u2018god\u2019 are modified by relative clauses introduced by \u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 \u2018where, which\u2019. While ancient Greek certainly had this relative pronoun, the Yevanic dialect of the 1547 Constantinople Torah uses the indeclinable form \u1f41\u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6.<\/p>\n

Vamvas Translation<\/h2>\n

Now we skip ahead 300 more years to an 1850 edition containing the Katharevousa translation of Ne\u00f3phytos V\u00e1mvas:<\/p>\n

\u03a4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u0392\u03c1\u03ac\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac \u03c3\u03b5, \u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c2, \/ \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac \u03c3\u03b5.<\/p>\n

You forgot the rock that begot you, \/ and you forgot God, who molded you.<\/p>\n

\n

P. Fouad 266 (1st cent. BCE)
\n18.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u00a0 \u03c4\u03b1<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\/ \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5<\/u><\/p>\n

Chester Beatty P. VI (2nd cent. CE)
\n18.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd<\/u> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0 \u00a0 \u00a0\/\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5<\/u> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2<\/u>\u00a0\u03c3\u03b5<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Vaticanus (4th cent. CE)
\n18.\u00a0\u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c2, \/ \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5.<\/p>\n

Washington MS (early 5th cent. CE)
\n18. \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5 \u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2, \/ \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5<\/p>\n

Codex Alexandrinus (5th cent. CE)
\n18.\u00a0\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5 \u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c2, \/ \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5<\/p>\n

Constantinople Torah (1547)
\n18. \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd<\/u> \u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03b5 \u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u03be\u03b5\u03c7\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03c2 \/ \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd<\/u> \u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03b5 \u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd<\/p>\n

Vamvas (1850)
\n18.\u00a0\u03a4\u1f78\u03bd<\/u> \u03b4\u1f72 \u0392\u03c1\u03ac\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5, \u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c2, \/ \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5.<\/p>\n

\n

In light of the archaizing tendencies of the kathar\u00e9vousa gl\u00f3ssa<\/em>, it is no surprise that the morphology and syntax of ancient participial forms have reappeared, replacing the relative clauses of the Constantinople Torah formed with \u1f41\u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6. This can be seen in the parallel syntactic structures \u0392\u03c1\u03ac\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac \u03c3\u03b5 and \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac \u03c3\u03b5, one in each half of the verse. Compare \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac \u03c3\u03b5 and \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac \u03c3\u03b5 (reconstructed from Papyrus Fouad 266). These two phrasings precisely mimic what we have already seen, with the exception of vocabulary. Here a word for \u2018rock\u2019, \u03b2\u03c1\u03ac\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd, preserves the metaphor of the Hebrew noun \u05e6\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8 \u2018rock\u2019, rather than giving the meaning of the metaphor, as did \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd \u2018power\u2019 in the Constantinople Torah, or replacing it entirely with \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd \u2018god\u2019, as in the other preceding translations. Also, with \u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03c9 \u2018I mold, I shape\u2019 instead of the \u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03c9 \u2018I rear, I foster [children]\u2019 and \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03ad\u03c9 \u2018I am in travail [of birth]\u2019 of the preceding translations, the image of God moves from divine parent to divine artisan.<\/p>\n

Readings from Symmachus and from Aquila<\/h2>\n

Now it is time for me to fill in the gap that I have been leaving in my comparative table. I would like to bring in readings from two revisions of the Septaugint tradition: in the first half of v. 18, I will draw on the revision of Symmachus, which is dated to around the end of the 2nd century or the beginning of the 3rd century CE, and in the second half of the verse, I will draw on the revision of Aquila, dated to around 125 CE. I have left them out until now because the textual evidence for these revisions is scattered throughout various exemplars written over a wide range of time, and I wanted to focus on individual manuscripts first.<\/p>\n

\n

P. Fouad 266 (1st cent. BCE)
\n18.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u00a0 \u03c4\u03b1<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\/ \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5<\/u><\/p>\n

Chester Beatty P. VI (2nd cent. CE)
\n18.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd<\/u> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0 \u00a0 \u00a0\/\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5<\/u> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2<\/u>\u00a0\u03c3\u03b5<\/p>\n

Symmachus (2nd\u20133rd cent. CE)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\/ Aquila (early 2nd cent. CE)
\n18.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2<\/u> \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\/\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c9\u03b4\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5<\/p>\n

Vaticanus (4th cent. CE)
\n18.\u00a0\u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c2, \/ \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5.<\/p>\n

Washington MS (early 5th cent. CE)
\n18. \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5 \u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2, \/ \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5<\/p>\n

Codex Alexandrinus (5th cent. CE)
\n18.\u00a0\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5 \u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c2, \/ \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5<\/p>\n

Constantinople Torah (1547)
\n18. \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd<\/u> \u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03b5 \u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u03be\u03b5\u03c7\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03c2 \/ \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd<\/u> \u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03b5 \u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd<\/p>\n

Vamvas (1850)
\n18.\u00a0\u03a4\u1f78\u03bd<\/u> \u03b4\u1f72 \u0392\u03c1\u03ac\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5, \u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c2, \/ \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5.<\/p>\n

\n

In the first half of v. 18, Symmachus attests to a different form of the verb \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ac\u03c9 \u2018I beget\u2019 than we have seen in the other translations: the noun \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u2018engendering, begetting\u2019, rather than the finite verb \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u2018he begot\u2019 of the Constantinople Torah or the participle \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u2018having begotten\u2019 of the others. With the possessive pronoun \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u2018of you\u2019, we can postulate that the line read something like the following: \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u03bd\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c2 \u2018you haver forgotten the god of your engendering\u2019.<\/p>\n

Aquila attests to two notable readings. The first is \u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u2018strength\u2019 in the place where the other translations have \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd\/\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u2018god\u2019. Its meaning is similar to the \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u2018power\u2019 of the Constantinople Torah, but instead of interpreting a metaphor (that is, the divine appellation \u05e6\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8 \u2018rock\u2019) it substitutes a quality of God, strength, for the word \u201cGod.\u201d The second notable reading is \u1f60\u03b4\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u2018being in birth pains\u2019. It is a participle, which is the grammatical form that every other translation has here\u2014except for the Constantinople Torah, which has a finite verb. The meaning of \u1f60\u03b4\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, however, matches only that of the Constantinople Torah\u2014\u1f10\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u2018he was in travail [of birth]\u2019\u2014and not that of the others.<\/p>\n

Today\u2019s Greek Version<\/h2>\n
\n

P. Fouad 266 (1st cent. BCE)
\n18.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u00a0 \u03c4\u03b1<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\/ \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5<\/u><\/p>\n

Chester Beatty P. VI (2nd cent. CE)
\n18.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd<\/u> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0 \u00a0 \u00a0\/\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5<\/u> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2<\/u>\u00a0\u03c3\u03b5<\/p>\n

Symmachus (2nd\u20133rd cent. CE)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\/ Aquila (early 2nd cent. CE)
\n18.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2<\/u> \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\/\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c9\u03b4\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5<\/p>\n

Vaticanus (4th cent. CE)
\n18.\u00a0\u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5 \u1f10\u03bd\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c2, \/ \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5.<\/p>\n

Washington MS (early 5th cent. CE)
\n18. \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5 \u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2, \/ \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5<\/p>\n

Codex Alexandrinus (5th cent. CE)
\n18.\u00a0\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5 \u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c2, \/ \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5<\/p>\n

Constantinople Torah (1547)
\n18. \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd<\/u> \u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03b5 \u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u03be\u03b5\u03c7\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03c2 \/ \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd<\/u> \u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03b5 \u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd<\/p>\n

Vamvas (1850)
\n18.\u00a0\u03a4\u1f78\u03bd<\/u> \u03b4\u1f72 \u0392\u03c1\u03ac\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5, \u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c2, \/ \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac<\/u> \u03c3\u03b5.<\/p>\n

Today\u2019s Greek Version (1997)
\n18. \u03a4\u03bf \u0392\u03c1\u03ac\u03c7\u03bf<\/u> \u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03b5 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5, \u0399\u03c3\u03c1\u03b1\u03ae\u03bb, \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd<\/u> \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03c2\u00a0\/\u00a0\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf \u0398\u03b5\u03cc<\/u>, \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03cc<\/u> \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5.<\/p>\n

\n

Finally, I would like to bring in a modern translation, the fully approved demotic translation of 1997, Today\u2019s Greek Version, which is published by the Hellenic Bible Society and freely available online.<\/p>\n

\u03a4\u03bf \u0392\u03c1\u03ac\u03c7\u03bf \u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03b5 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5, \u0399\u03c3\u03c1\u03b1\u03ae\u03bb, \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03c2\u00a0\/\u00a0\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf \u0398\u03b5\u03cc, \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03cc \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5.<\/p>\n

The rock that begot you, O Israel, him you have neglected, \/ and you have forgotten God, your shaper.<\/p>\n

In terms of semantics, we can note that the first word, \u03c4\u03bf \u03b2\u03c1\u03ac\u03c7\u03bf \u2018rock\u2019, as in Vamvas, preserves the Hebrew metaphor of \u05e6\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8 \u2018rock\u2019, rather than removing or interpreting it. At the end of the verse, God is equated with the noun \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03cc \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u2018your shaper\u2019, recalling the image of the divine artisan, rather than the divine parent, as we saw in Vamvas.<\/p>\n

There is also a grammatical point worth noting. Between the 1547 edition of the Constantinople Torah and the 1997 edition of Today\u2019s Greek Version, we can see the loss of the initial augment, in the earlier form \u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03c2 and the later form \u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03c2. I don\u2019t include the evidence of Vamvas (1850), because it is deliberately archaizing.<\/p>\n

Conclusions<\/h2>\n

Now that we have taken a tour through the ages, approximately 2100 years in length, it is time to take stock. As I said at the outset, it is for others\u2014the experts in the history of the Greek language\u2014to fit facts such as these into diachronic models. Nevertheless, let me sum up what Deuteronomy 32:18 has to offer.<\/p>\n

First, the development of the verb \u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9 \u2018I forget\u2019\u2014with the prefix \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9- in the earlier texts. \u039b\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9 gave rise to an adjectival form, \u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u2018forgetful\u2019, which gave rise to a denominative verb \u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03ad\u03c9, having the same meaning as \u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9 and eventually replacing it. This is by contrast to the various verbs that end the first half of v. 18: \u1f10\u03bd\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u03c9, \u03be\u03b5\u03c7\u03bd\u03ac\u03c9, and \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9. Here there is no development of a single word but rather different basic verbs, differing prepositional prefixes\u2014altogether different words, albeit with a similar meaning. The development of \u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9 to \u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03ad\u03c9 is also by contrast to the verb \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ac\u03c9, which shows no changes at all.<\/p>\n

The second datum that I would like to draw attention to, though it is a small one, is the unusal use of the accusative in Papyrus Fouad 266 following the verb \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03ac\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, instead of the more usual genitive. Is it best understood as a mistake, such as perhaps a copyist\u2019s error, or can it be understood in the context of a changing system of grammar and syntax?<\/p>\n

The third is the loss of the augment, as seen in the forms \u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03c2 and \u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03c2.<\/p>\n

Fourthly and finally, there is what seems to be an increasing preference for participles over relative clauses in such contexts as seen in v. 18. Where the earlier translations and the archaizing Vamvas translation have \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac \u03c3\u03b5, the translations from 1547 and 1997 have essentially the same relative clause (\u1f40)\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03b5 (\u1f10)\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5. As I mentioned before, it is not that modern Greek does not have participles or that earlier stages of Greek did not have relative clauses. Admittedly, the variety of available participial forms did decrease quite significantly over time. Perhaps this loss was a development that was balanced out by expanded usage elsewhere.<\/p>\n

Footnotes<\/h2>\n

[1]<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Society for the Promotion of Education and Learning (\u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae \u0395\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1); Center for Hellenic Studies.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 4Q122 \/ 4Q LXXDeut.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Song of Moses as a test case for diachrony This essay is a revision of a talk I gave on March 11th, 2017, at a day-long SPEL-CHS[1] workshop held at the Sto\u00e1 tou Vivl\u00edou in Athens. I would like to thank Prof. George Babiniotis and the SPEL for the beautiful event that they arranged, … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Keith Stone”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.thehollyfest.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/962"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.thehollyfest.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.thehollyfest.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.thehollyfest.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.thehollyfest.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=962"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"http:\/\/www.thehollyfest.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/962\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":980,"href":"http:\/\/www.thehollyfest.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/962\/revisions\/980"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.thehollyfest.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=962"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}