Hebrew Sludies 38 (1997) 185 Reviews REPETITION OF THE POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS IN THE SEPTUAGINT. By Raija SoUamo. SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies 39. Pp. x + 120. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Cloth, $39.95. This monograph represents the latest contribution to the study of Septuagint translation technique by a scholar from the "Helsinki school" which, in addition to Raija SoUamo, includes Septuagintalists like Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen and Anneli Aejmelaeus. In this treatise, Sollamo undertakes to investigate how the Septuagint translators of the Pentateuch dealt with the Hebrew grammatical phenomenon of the repetition of a pronominal possessive suffix in a series of coordinate nouns. This syntactical feature presented the translators with a challenge since, as she demonstrates in chapter 1, it did not correspond to the normal Greek idiom of their time. How they came to grips with that problem should, says SoUamo, reveal something about their competence and consistency as translators and about the kinds of translations-on the continuum between literal and idiomaticthat they intended to produce. Her aim, as well, is to discover if there are differences in translation technique when the books of the Pentateuch are compared, and thus to determine whether or not the prevailing opinion among Septuagint scholars that each book "had its own translator" (except for Exodus which likely had two) can be supported by the results of this research (pp. 4-5). In her introduction, Sollamo explains that when possession is to be indicated in a chain of two or more coordinate nouns, Hebrew characteristically shows a suffix on each noun. Greek, on the other hand, has no pronominaVpossessive suffixes at all but can indicate possession by means of independent adjectival and personal pronouns. In classical Greek, however , possessive pronouns are used sparingly. Even in non-biblical Hellenistic texts that date from approximately the same period as that during which the Septuagint was created, their frequency of use is much lower than in the Greek Old Testament. Furthermore, in the sources that Sollamo investigates in her first chapter (Polybius [Histories I-V], Ptolemaic papyri, Hellenistic inscriptions, Aristeas, 2 Maccabees, Philo [De migralione Abrahami], and Josephus [De bello [udaieo, Book ID, a possessive pronoun normally occurs only once in association with a series of coordinate nouns-it is almost never repeated-and it appears with approximately the same frequency before the first noun or after the first or second nouns. With this as a background, Sollamo proceeds, in chapters 2 through 6, to analyze each of the books of the Pentateuch with regard to how the Hebrew Sludies 38 (1997) 186 Reviews Septuagint translators rendered possessive suffixes on coordinate Hebrew nouns. For every book, she distinguishes cases which involve two coordinate nouns from those which feature three or more, and she treats separately instances in which the Greek possessive pronoun occurs with each noun, those in which it occurs but not with each noun, and those in which it does not occur at all. Statistical breakdowns are given in each of these chapters and then tabulated in chapter 7 where the results from all five books are summarized and compared. Sollamo's investigation gives rise to a number of observations. First, in the Septuagint Pentateuch as a whole, possessive pronouns are repeated with coordinate nouns in the majority of relevant cases (160/244; i.e., more than 65%). Given that this almost never occurs in the contemporaneous non-canonical Greek sources which Sollamo examines, she concludes that this must be evidence of Hebraizing influence. Further evidence of that influence is adduced from the fact that, whereas in non-biblical Greek the possessive pronoun appears quite commonly before the noun with which it is associated, in the Septuagint it almost always follows the noun. Second, because possessive pronouns are repeated rather less frequently in Genesis and Exodus (51 % and 40%, respectively) than in Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy (75%, 86%, and 76%, respectively), it appears that the translators of the first two books gave greater consideration to the idiom of their target language in this regard than did the translators of the latter three who were more faithful to their Hebrew Vorlagen. SoUamo points out that a similar kind of distinction with respect to transla:.. tion technique...
Read full abstract