The Septuagint of Jeremiah: A Study in Translation Technique and Recensions

This dissertation comprises a translation technical study of Septuagint Jeremiah (Jer LXX) for the purpose of characterizing the translation. Though modern scholars mostly agree that the translation follows its Hebrew Vorlage very closely, it contains several indicators of free and less formal equivalence. In addition, discrepancy between certain renderings within chapters 1–28 (Jer a’) and chapters 29–52 (Jer b’) have borne debate regarding the unity of the translation, particularly whether these differences reflect the work of multiple translators, a later revision, or the peculiarities of a single translator. study of translation technique constitutes a comparison between Hebrew words and expressions and their Greek equivalents, and it is the primary means by which to identify the different factors that influenced the product of translation. Three factors need to be taken into account when evaluating a translation in the LXX: the syntax and grammar of the Hebrew Vorlage, the requirements of the Greek language, and the individual translator’s own peculiarities. This type of analysis provides answers to questions regarding the nature of Jer LXX as a textual witness to the Hebrew text, the development of the Greek text of Jer LXX, and the translation character of Jer LXX. method is applied to the renderings of Hebrew words and expressions for which a difference between Jer a’ and Jer b’ has been identified. This choice of material has been made in order that the issue regarding the bisectioning of Jer LXX can be addressed to the fullest possible extent. Since the question of a revision in Jer LXX revolves around the translation differences between Jer a’ and Jer b’, the character of these differences are delineated in relation to the character of the kaige tradition, an exemplar of early jewish revision that is universally accepted as such. This comparison allows a further differentiation of the characteristics among the differences that can be categorised as revisional in nature and those that cannot, which in turn enables a more precise placement of Jer LXX within the history and development of the LXX as a whole. conclusions of this study draw from the different types of changes that occur between Jer a’ and Jer b’. Certain differences between the two reflect the revisional characteristics of the kaige tradition, which suggests that they were produced by a reviser who was invested in a revisionary tradition similar to kaige. This correlates with earlier suggestions that Jer b’ contains a revision. A number of the differences indicate that the character of the revision is not as developed in its system and consistency as are the later exemplars of the kaige tradition. This distinguishes the revision in Jer b’ from other known revisions and allows its placement as prior to the later kaige revisers. Third, certain differences constitute a change toward more natural Greek expression, which is the opposite of what one would expect from a revision since Greek idiom usually does not reflect the formal characteristics of Hebrew. These differences are to be understood as reflecting a change towards more intuitive use of the Greek language by the first translator of Jer.