Jean Maurais, Characterizing Old Greek Deuteronomy as an Ancient Translation, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 203 (Leiden: Brill, 2022). 9789004516571.
Reviewed by Joseph Scales, University of Agder, joseph.scales@uia.no.
Jean Maurais frames this study as an exploration of the active decisions made by the translator of the Old Greek (OG) Deuteronomy. Rather than viewing the translation of Deuteronomy as simply the rendering of a Hebrew text in Greek, he seeks to understand “how the translator of the book of Deuteronomy went about his task” (p. 3). He considers the rendering of the text made by the translator and argues that attention should be paid to those choices to understand the wider context of textual production and translation in the ancient world. In order to analyse the text of Deuteronomy as widely as possible within a limited space, Maurais selects three indicative sections which illustrate “different literary profiles,” namely “paraenetic, legal, and poetic” (p. 10), respectively, Deuteronomy 6:13–25, 25:1–12, and 32:1–9.
Mauris then explores the characterisation of OG Deuteronomy, covering its likely provenance (perhaps Egypt if not Alexandria) and composition date (around the first half of the 3rd century BCE), its approach to translating the Hebrew Vorlage, and other attendant issues. Maurais’s guiding approach is drawn from Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS), which seeks to focus on three key elements: function, process, and product. DTS attempts to show how a text functions within a target culture, the process by which a text is produced from a source text, and the linguistic profile of a text as so produced. In defence of this approach against the critique that much information required to fully utilise DTS with regards to OG Deuteronomy is unavailable, Maurais argues that we can be sure that OG Deuteronomy in some way relates to its target culture as a considered product and that conclusions can be restricted to concern the choices made by the translator rather than suppositions about their “mental state” (p. 74). Further conclusions about the text’s function in its context and the specific type of translation that OG Deuteronomy can be characterised as are beyond the current study or will be limited.
Maurais opts to approach OG Deuteronomy “from two complementary vantage points”; these points themselves are adapted from the work of Cameron Boyd-Taylor and consist in considering (a) the text as a translation of the Vorlage and (b) the text itself as contextually situated (p. 76). Respectively, these reflect concepts of adequacy and acceptability, concepts which will be explored in each of the three indicative sections discussed. Following a comprehensive discussion of method, Maurais suggests that in most cases where significant or large differences are found between OG Deuteronomy and the Hebrew witnesses, these can be attributed to the Vorlage as the default starting point (pp. 99–100).
In each of chapters three, four and five, Maurais provides an outline of one text section followed by verse-by-verse Hebrew and Greek text and accompanying commentary, complete with text-critical notes and comparison with other translated Hebrew-to-Greek texts. These are followed by evaluative sections, which themselves touch on how the text fulfils criteria of adequacy and acceptability. The paraenetic material of Deuteronomy 6 is found to be one of “translation equivalency” in an example that raises very few problems for the translator to overcome (p. 144). The translator here shows skill in utilising Greek grammatical forms and conveying word choice and order from the source text, while additionally, on occasion, avoiding Hebrew idioms and opting for specific stylistic features.
Regarding the legal passage of Deuteronomy 25:1–12, Maurais finds that the translator often strives to translate towards acceptability in Greek, “leaning strongly towards target conventions,” and makes choices which clarify the text itself (p. 193). There is also some tentatively identified evidence for a synthetic translation that takes into account similar Pentateuchal legal material (if such passages can be understood as legal in the same sense). Maurais finds that the primary translational norm identified for this material is its “conformity to the conventions of Greek grammar” (p. 195). While the overall strategy is similar to the paraenetic material, the translator here seems to be more willing to avoid consistent lexical choices for terms and to opt for “Greek formulations” over a “word-for-word reproduction” (p. 197). While clarity was noted as a concern in some cases above, there are plenty of counterexamples—so many that Maurais suggests that clarification of the material in the target language was only a tertiary norm.
As for the poetic material of Deuteronomy 32:1–9, the translated text does not contain much in the way of standard poetical features; those that were present in the Hebrew are largely lost and not replaced with Greek conventions. Despite this, the text does demonstrate differences from other material in OG Deuteronomy and so retains a sense of distinctiveness, even if it does not rise to the level of Greek poetry. In a comparison with the previous two passages analysed, Maurais highlights the re-ordering of translation norms and priorities: whereas in the translations of paraenetical and legal material the translator typically favoured lexical matches, stylistic features took a greater priority when the translator worked with this poetic material.
To gain a greater appreciation for the theological and/or ideological perspective of the translator, Maurais examines the concepts of wickedness ((רשע(rshʿ)/impiety (ασέβεια)(asebeia) and justice (tsdqh)(צדקה)/mercy (ελεημοσύνη)(eleēmosunē). To determine how these terms were conceived of in the 3rd century BCE, Maurais discusses contemporary Greek texts and inscriptions which shed light on the implications of these terms for a Greek-reading audience. Similarly, the counterpart Hebrew terms are also examined as they appear in other Hebrew texts before Maurais explores how these terms were employed in Deuteronomy. Default matching, semantic overlap, and theological considerations all offer some explanation for certain choices, with all of them perhaps being responsible for the move from the Hebrew term for wickedness to the Greek term for impiety. However, the semantic understanding of justice as “mercy” in the cases where this has been selected perhaps accounts for the translator’s choice.
Maurais concludes the work with a helpful table that ranks the “constitutive norms” of each of the discussed passages. Across all three texts, “grammatical well-formedness highly favoured” tops the ranking (p. 277). He further draws attention to the differences that region, social situation, and linguistic register can make to what is understood as acceptable Greek. Regarding the translation of Deuteronomy in particular, Maurais suggests that the Greek text allows the use of Deuteronomy among readers who did not possess suitable Hebrew reading skills. Whether for audiences who could not read Hebrew or for whom perhaps Hebrew was more difficult to engage with than Greek, the important caveat is that OG Deuteronomy presents a specific translation that retains features of Hebrew syntax. These choices may suggest that the readers were at least familiar with how these texts should “sound” or perhaps they felt that the translation could not deviate as far as it might from Hebrew in order to make for a more fluid Greek translation.
In summary, this volume is a wonderful book, of importance for those interested in the Septuagint but also the early reception of Deuteronomy. The volume paves the way for further work on Deuteronomy itself and also for the study of ancient Jewish translational practices. To develop long-standing impressions of the Septuagint itself, its place in the development of biblical texts, and its use by communities around the Mediterranean in antiquity, books such as this one can benefit a wide range of studies.
Table of Contents
Introduction (1–12)
1. Old Greek Deuteronomy and Its Characterization (13–48)
2. Methodological Considerations (49–100)
3. Deuteronomy 6:13–25 (101–45)
4. Deuteronomy 25:1–12 (146–98)
5. Deuteronomy 32:1–9 (199–242)
6. Lexical Choice and Theology in og Deuteronomy (243–75)
7. Conclusion (276–83)
Bibliography (285–309)
Index of Ancient Sources (310–19)
Index of Modern Authors (320–24)
Dialogue
1. Throughout your book, you referred to a singular “translator” of OG Deuteronomy. Is this following convention or because you do believe that there was only one translator? If you believe the latter, how might this impact our understanding of ancient translator’s work, especially perhaps vis-à-vis colleagues, enslaved workers, or other subordinates?
The singular is employed as a methodological starting point, but various scenarios can be entertained. This could take the form of individual sections being attributed to different translators. For example, Thackeray speculated long ago that the last few chapters of the book stand apart and may be the work of a different individual. But the argument is complicated by the nature of the source material in this section of the book (esp. 32–33) that may simply warrant a different translation approach. Collaboration is also possible, as John Lee has argued, but one must also take into account the many ways by which OG Deuteronomy differs in style and approach from the other Pentateuch translations. If there was collaboration, it was limited. Moreover, there are indications of borrowing of other translations (e.g., OG Exodus) in OG Deuteronomy, which implies sequential and not parallel projects. Finally, the possibility of revisions during the production process cannot be excluded, but it is also difficult to demonstrate. These may have involved a subordinate or other colleagues. That said, each Pentateuch translation contains a sufficient number of idiosyncrasies to posit that each was the work of a different individual, and this explains the basic assumption of the inquiry.
2. If you could include one or two further passages from Deuteronomy in your analysis, what would they be and why would you select those passages in particular? For example, the ritual texts would have been a point of interest.
It would certainly be worthwhile to compare the approach taken in the narrative material of the first three chapters of the book, though I suspect it would not have been very different from that found in chapters 4–11 (of which chapter 6 was studied in my book). Nevertheless, these are of interest in part because of the connections that can be made to similar narratives in other parts of the Pentateuch. Sometimes these connections (via harmonization or assimilation) are already made more explicit at the level of the Hebrew textual tradition. I agree that ritual texts would also be of interest as a genre of its own. It would be of interest to inquire whether these warrant a different translation approach.
3. If I have understood correctly, you note the importance of variations of the Hebrew text known from Qumran manuscripts, showing that there were lots of variable readings of the Hebrew texts of Deuteronomy. Is it possible that some scribes making copies of Hebrew texts were influenced by those choices prevalent among Greek translators of Deuteronomy?
Your question relates to the priority and influence of variant readings. The Greek translations were likely known in Palestine, as 4QLXXDeut would attest. Therefore, their influence on Qumran scribes (for example) cannot be excluded. At the same time, I take a rather minimalist approach to the translator’s role in introducing significant textual variants, especially additions and omissions, in light of the overall translation approach observed. I am also of the opinion that translating and copying remain fundamentally different tasks that require different skillsets and approaches to the material. These often produce different types of variants. A consequence of my approach is that it would imply that many of the variants found in OG Deuteronomy already existed in Hebrew. That being the case, it becomes more difficult to argue that later scribes making copies of Hebrew texts were influenced by OG Deuteronomy and not some other extant Hebrew text.
4. Do you think that the translational norms attributed to the translator of OG Deuteronomy in your book are broadly similar to other Pentateuchal translations or other texts translated from Hebrew to Greek?
Broadly speaking, we can observe that translators and their communities increasingly favor mimetic translations. Norms such as that of representing all elements of the source text, for example, become more important. This is a generalization, of course, since some translations (OG Proverbs, OG Job) fall very much outside of this trend. That said, this general tendency also applies within the Pentateuch: there are differences in approach between Genesis and Exodus, on the one hand, and Leviticus–Numbers–Deuteronomy, on the other, as if there had been a refinement of methodology between these “phases” of the translation project. Thus, the variation that I find inside of Deuteronomy is still limited in many respects when compared with the approach observed in OG Exodus. In the latter, there is less of a concern to follow the Hebrew word order, to name but one example. Nevertheless, and taking a step back, one could argue that the five Pentateuch translations remain largely similar in their style. In fact, the late Jim Aitken has argued that there are some similarities in approach to translations of Egyptian administrative documents into Greek. In that sense, the Septuagint translators would have, broadly speaking, followed and adapted translation conventions that existed in their sociocultural context.
I am most grateful to Jean Maurais for his thoughtful answers to my questions.
Rhea Classical Review 