Broto&v. A favourite word of Homer in the Septuagint version of Job

Broto&v. A favourite word of Homer in the Septuagint version of Job Broto&v, a favourite word used by Homer, appears exclusively in the Septuagint version of Job to express the beauty of the whole man, as an excellent creature of God, who is transient but strives to achieve eternity. He is vulnerable but wants to reach perfection, is mortal and longs for immortality. This equivalent enables us to decode translation processes in the LXX-Job and to uncover hermeneutical principles and characteristics of its theological and anthropological language and thought.


INTRODUCTION
One of the most admirable ways in which the Septuagint translators rendered the meaning of the original into Greek, is found especially in their efforts to transfer poetry from Hebrew into Greek by using epical-poetical language.From the vocabulary they employed, we can conclude that the translators of the poetical books of the Hebrew Old Testament preferred the way of formal transformation and new * Supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.First presented by the SBL-International Meeting at the Pontificia Università Gregoriana, Pontificio Instituto Biblico, on the 11th July 2001 in Rome (Dafni 2001a), and also at both the Universities of Pretoria and Stellenbosch in October and November 2006 respectively.Some aspects were discussed extensively in my seminars at the Faculty of Humanities, Duisburg-Essen University (http://www.uniessen.de/Ev-Theologie/courses/dafni-homer2003.htm).The additional remarks on the topics "Old Greek version", "meanings and intentions of a translated text", "poetic and divine inspiration", "Theology of the LXX", "Theology of the LXX-Language" in excurses and footnotes are a response to Horacio Simian-Yofre's comments on the present contribution.The additions do not change the original concept at all, but they indicate the manner of coming to grips with our question of Theology of the Septuagint language in the horizon of the Ancient Greek literature and thought. 1 Dr Dafni is a research fellow of the Department of Old Testament Studies, Faculty of Theology, University of Pretoria.
ISSN 1609-9982 = VERBUM ET ECCLESIA JRG 28(1)2007 creation of free poetical styles, rather than the way of a reconstruction or exact imitation of given Hebrew poetical forms and structures.These efforts are reflected especially in the Septuagint of the book of Job.The Septuagint-Job, which is about 1/6 th shorter than the Masoretic text, avoids the strict exactness of words in the translation and rather tries to understand the deeper meaning and intention of the Hebrew source text 2 and to reproduce its spirit by applying hermeneutical principles and rules which follow Ancient Greek lines of poetical thought.According to Henry St J Thackeray, the translator of the book of Job "was a student of the Greek poets; his version was probably produced for the general reader, not for the synagogues" 3 .Subsequently, Thackeray ascribes the LXX-Job to a sole translator and gives answer to the key-question of its life-2 The conviction, that, "in order to make a comparison between the Hebrew and the Greek text is absolutely necessary to establish the Old Greek version as a base", has more than one logical and methodological weakness due to the fact that we today only have eclectic or diplomatic Hebrew and Greek text editions, namely reconstructed texts and texts which are based on the oldest complete preserved codex.Since the discovery of the Qumran texts we know that neither the MT nor the LXX is identical with the so-called Original text.They are only representative text-forms or text-types.Therefore, both of them should first and foremost be seen as texts in their own rights.The LXX represents a complete translation corpus of Hebrew originals from the 3rd to the 1st century BC, which are lost and can only be reconstructed on the basis of comparisons with the MT.The oldest complete manuscript of the LXX, Codex Vaticanus, goes back to the 4th century AD.The MT represents the only reliable, complete text of the Hebrew Bible.Its oldest complete manuscript is the Codex Petropolitanus / Leningradensis from the 10th century AD.Critical editions offer eclectic texts and are definitely not identical with the Original text.That means they are rather representative of text-and theologically motivated decisions of modern editors, as opposed to the so-called Ur-Septuaginta, the translation done by the original Jewish translators.They are interesting because they offer several other readings so that the reader becomes aware of the fact that not only one single version but more versions were circulating in Antiquity.Eclectic texts have never really existed in this form.The old codices are real texts and therefore we should rather trust what is nearer to the LXX-origins, than the decision of an editor who definitely does not have the natural language feeling of Greek and Hebrew, and is determined to have different ideological and theological presuppositions than the original translators.3 Thackeray (1915, http://www.bible.researcher.com/isbelxx).
setting.If correct, Thackeray identifies a crucial factor when trying to understand its high-reflected poetical language.
It is noteworthy that Homeric vocabulary was quite often consulted by the LXX-Job 4 .A characteristic example is the word broto& v 5 as an equivalent for #wn) 6 , Md) 7 and r#b 8 .The word #wn) is a collective term, widely attested in the Ancient Semitic Languages.It occurs relatively rare within the Hebrew Scriptures, most frequently in the book of Job and its precise meaning is controversial 9 .Md) 10 and r#b 11 , however, are employed by the Hebrew Old Testament authors as collective terms a) to describe mankind as God's creation, and b) to reflect in its historic frailty.In this sense, the equivalent broto& v enables us not only to decode translation processes in the book of Job, but also to uncover hermeneutical principles and characteristics of its theological and anthropological language.
ISSN 1609-9982 = VERBUM ET ECCLESIA JRG 28(1)2007 embossed term in the Intertestamental writings 12 .It is, however, not found in the New Testament, though in the Hymnography of the Ancient Church 13 .
An approximate English translation of broto& v is "mortal man" (LSJ 331).A similar semantic equation is also found in German lexica: "sterblich", "der Sterbliche".These semantic choices seem to provide the necessary pragmatic horizon for a certain understanding with regard to the nature and the value of this translation equivalent.The Greek word in question, however, can be understood and explained in more than one way.The decision about its meaning and significance depends on a) the theological and anthropological relevance of the word broto& v up till now, and b) the inner structure of its Greek meanings and intentions in the Septuagint 14 .
When analysing the historic-semantic background of broto& v as a translation equivalent, its Homeric heritage should be taken into account as well.Of course, the Homeric language can be described in various ways.But from my perspective it is crucial to analyse the following issues: Did the meaning of broto& v remain static or diverge progressively, and how could the semantic wingspan from Homer to LXX-Job be reconstructed?Did the Job-translator correctly understand his original source text and really made lexical, as well as mental adoptions from the Homeric Epics?Or did he rather slavishly imitate Homeric style and blindly promulgate specific Homeric forms in his own translation in order to reflect the nature of Homeric ways of thinking?How are his translation procedures to be legitimatised?

14
It must be paid attention to the fact that an approach to the "meanings and intensions" of a translated text can definitely not only be deducted from the context and the network of relations that words have in the Greek linguistic system.The LXX-language should be understood as a balance of the translators' Greek education and their Jewish identity based on their belief in Yahweh, the revealed God of Israel.
The present study aims to rediscover the inner unity of the abovementioned questions especially in view of a reconstruction of the Theology of the language of the Septuagint-Job 15 .
The Theology of the Septuagint should be seen as the crown of every philological and theological activity in the field of the LXX-studies, because it deals with central theological issues regarding the Greek Old Testament's belief in one single God (Dafni 2003).Since the Old Testament is not simply a book, but a library which consists of several books, written by different individuals during the course of thousand years, which reflects very old oral traditions differing in form and content, the question of the modifiability of perceptions and depictions of God in Ancient Israel arises.Regarding the LXX, this question must be put on the table as follows: If the LXX has really been translated in the course of two and a half centuries by different individuals, then how did they understand, explain and translate potential changes of perception of God and modifications of expressions referring to God?And how could we today explain the processes described there?15 In the last three decades, LXX-scholars raise the following questions: a) How should the LXX be understood?Is it just a translation, or rather a theological document of the early Jewish tradition?Is it a valid part of this tradition, or is it only a reflection of it?Can we assume that the translators of the Greek Bible are inspired by Ancient Greek authors or did they follow closely the wording of Ancient Greek texts as well?When scholars raise especially the latter question, then it is obvious that they consciously or unconsciously link and sometimes mix poetic inspiration, which refers only to the formal aspect of the scriptural texts, and divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures as the encounter of divine revelation and mental and psychical capacity of the scriptural authors.For other scholars, however, it is clear enough that investigations of biblical vocabulary and the attempt to give an explanation of how the text-semantics and the theology of a text are joined together, refer to theological ideas which we can always reconstruct on the basis of a given text form, but we definitely do not investigate the nature of the divine revelation.This attempt certainly does not deny the divine factor, but acknowledges the limitations of human ratio, as well as the limitations of human language to express "more precisely", "thoroughly" and "accurately" experiences of divine revelation.
ISSN 1609-9982 = VERBUM ET ECCLESIA JRG 28(1)2007 The term Theology of the Septuagint can mean both a) the theology that is really contained and detected in the Corpus of the Greek Old Testament, as well as b) the theology developed from the LXX by Christian theologians (cf Dafni 1999Dafni , 2001aDafni , 2001bDafni , 2002Dafni , 2003Dafni , 2006a.b).b).This last attempt presupposes certain value judgments as well as certain attitudes of the LXX-scholar as a theologian with regard to the subject of his research.For this reason, scholars should feel obliged to their readers to clarify how they define the term Theology of the Septuagint and with which definition they are dealing.
In my opening lecture at the IOSCS-Congress in Basel in 2001 (Dafni 2002), I introduced the term "Theology of the Septuagint Language" in order to contribute to the possibility of writing a Theology of the Septuagint in its own right 16 .Of course, I used the word "theology" as a collective term, which includes "theologies" as sub-areas of the historical-critical analysis.In my view, Theology of the Septuagint in its own right can only be the Theology which is based on quantitative or qualitative, intended or unintended differences among Hebrew text forms and the LXX-versions.For what is common between Hebrew and Old Greek versions can only be understood as theological inheritance of the whole Old Testament.The points 16 Modern LXX-scholars often make the unfounded assertion that "the translators of the Septuagint were mainly translators and not theologians", so that if one asks about the theology on the basis of the language used in the LXX, "it gives the impression of an eisegesis that supplants exegesis".The question we have to ask is, whether it is possible for anybody working with or on the Bible, a theological book katexochen, without giving theological thoughts about theological contents at all?And how is one to explain that the Septuaginta were only translators and not theologians in spite of fact that the written and the oral Torah as well as the Prophets and the other holy writings had been given as an inheritance to the Jewish people whose task was to understand, explain and transmit it to the present and the future generations?Had the LXX-translators not been working in this sense, then we have to assume that they were no Jewish people, but West European enlightened linguists.These assertions devaluate the translators as teachers of their theological inheritance, and aim at eliminating the LXX as a theological work.
where both the Hebrew and the Greek text versions differ quantitatively or qualitatively, could be characteristic of another or even a new understanding.Theologically speaking, this could be either a hint of developmental phases of the divine revelation or a sign of the degree and extent to which the human capacity can record the divine truth in written texts.
When dealing with such a question, we then have to be conscious of the fact that we are no longer on the area of text-linguistics, but on the area of metaphysics.The arguments do not have the same value anymore.Therefore, we have to be aware of the danger of mixing arguments and results of our investigation.It is not allowed to use linguistic arguments to ground metaphysical judgments or to abuse metaphysical prejudgments in order to criticize pure linguistic analysis.That is why we definitely need methodological criticism.Correctly understood, Theology of the Septuagint Language embraces methodological and philological criticism as well, but methodological or philological criticism without reflection on the Theology of the Language of the Septuagint remains unsubstantial and directionless.

SOME LEXICOGRAPHICAL REMARKS
The focus of the following remarks is indeed not on how to justify models of modern theoretical semantics which could only hardly contribute to a deeper understanding of the Greek language and thought 17 in comparison to the Hebrew.My aim is to chose and 17 Modern LXX-studies are deeply affected by the limited knowledge of Greek language and thought in its development and diachronic unity from the Mycenean era up till to now, as well as the enforcement of humanistic prejudices against the language and its native speakers.Cf. Caragounis (2004).The Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament tried to bridge the gap between Greek meanings and intentions, from Homer to the Apostolic Fathers.James Barr's criticism on the ThWNT refers to the implication of Christian ideas in the contextual meanings of the LXX.Emanuel Tov (1976), on the other hand, gave the key for further constructive investigations.He made the distinction "between three different dimensions of lexicographical description: the meaning of the words in the pre-Septuagintal stage, the meaning in the LXX itself as intended by the translators, and the meaning of the words as ISSN 1609-9982 = VERBUM ET ECCLESIA JRG 28(1)2007 present aspects, which -of course from the perspective of a native speaker -are really able to provide exegetical and hermeneutical useful insights into the lexical and metaphorical meanings of the word in question.

Occurrences of broto& v in the Septuagint-Job
On closer examination, we realize that broto& v appears parallel to sa& rc 44 (=flesh), gennhto_ v gunaiko& v 45 (=born from a woman), a) / nqrwpov 46 (=man) and a) nh& r 47 (=man).It should be noted that a) nh& r in these specific cases does not designate gender, but positive qualities of a man 48 that can also be ascribed to women under certain conditions.Therefore, further examination has to focus on linguistic as well as factual components of the given texts.

Etymology -Meaning -Translation
1.An important distinction, which should be taken into account when analysing and describing the theological and anthropological sense of broto& v, is between original and secondary meanings.The original meaning could also be derived from the word-etymology, because it may be included in the word itself, if the word has been artificially created by an author to serve certain purposes.In this case, secondary meanings have to be the prevailing themes and ideas of each context where the word is embedded.The word broto& v probably has been formed on the basis of already existing linguistic resources.Therefore, one should constantly pay attention to the linguistic aspects of the lexical equations of the Hebrew and Greek language.
Two kinds of hypotheses with regard to the relationship between the etymology and semantics of broto& v had already been developed in antiquity: a) Aelius Herodianus (Pseudoherodianus) (2nd century AD) asserts that the word broto& v originated from the verb marai/ nw (<mroto& v<broto& v) 49 .Marai/ nw is used primarily in relation to the plant kingdom in order to designate the withering of flowers and leaves 50 .In this instance, we can state that the word broto& v semantically derives from the plant kingdom and has become a symbol for man as an individual and for mankind in its entirety.b) Hesychius (5th/6th century AD), who established the Ancient Greek word-meaning in the form of a dictionary, made a distinction between the substantive bro& tov and the substantivated adjective broto/ v (postponement of the accent) 51 .According to Hesychius, bro& tov is a primary name designating both blood as well as an infection through blood.He supports this hypothesis with text evidence from Odyssey and Ilias 52 , and equates broto& v with the word meanings of i) fqarto& v (=destructible), ii) ghgenh& v (=coming from earth) and iii) a) / nqrwpov (=man, mankind).These meanings are not completely congruent but flow into one another.
Furthermore, there are two Greek verbal-adjectives, which can be used instead of fqarto& v 53 (LSJ 1927), namely trwto& v (LSJ 1832) and brwto& v (LSJ 333).Brwto& v seems to be an allomorph of broto& v, and in the text-transmission of the hymns of the Ancient Church both words are virtually interchangeable.i) Brwto& v 54 (vs.a) / brwtov 55 ) derives from the verb bibrw& skw and designates "something to eat, to distort", and in metaphorical sense "to rot, to decompose", as well as "the decomposed human flesh" (LXX-Job 25:6 and TestJob 20:8 cf.Acts 12:23: skwlhko& brwtov 56 ).ii) Trwto& v 57 (vs.a) / trwtov 58 ) derives from the verb titrw& skw and designates the wounded or injured man 59 .
Using a scale of meaning in order to indicate various meanings of the words, we can establish the following scheme: Broto& v as fqarto& v could under conditions be trwto& v 60 .In this case, the meaning of broto& v is the same as brwto& v, namely "decomposeable".But on the other hand, if the word-meaning handed down through Hesychius is right, then broto& v could be used as a designation of "blood" as the Sitz im Leben (setting of life), and thereupon as a characterisation of a living human being.Consequently, the word-spectrum of broto& v could contain both biological as well as ethical-moral meanings.Behind this wordusage may be hidden the ancient idea of a connection between the blood and the moral-ethical disposition of every human being.
In current language usage, blood can designate not only life, but also death, through its infection.This could be the biological explanation of the word broto& v.However, there is not only a biochemical infection, but also a moral infection of blood as setting of life 61 e.g. through lies which cause unjust and unfair deeds.Through lies and unjust deeds one becomes corrupt (brwto& v) 62 .Trwto& v, in this case, is the person who leans over to let himself be guided by lies and governed by injustice and unfairness 63 .Fqarto& v, on the other hand, indicates destructive urge, moral offence or misdemeanour and destructive deeds 64 .

Through the prefix-negation a) /
the adjective a) / mbrotov is formed.This word has been used to describe the divine nature in contrast to the human.Greek gods are a) / mbrotoi and eat a) mbrosi/ a, while man is broto& v, but can also be characterized as pro& brotov.What exactly is a) / mbrotov and pro& brotov?They are composites made by putting together the main word broto& v and the proelements a) / -(in-, un-) and pro& -(pre-).It is noteworthy that both composites indicate human depictions of the divine nature.This means that man, through self-observation, forms his divine pictures and ideas.According to Diogenes Laertius (3 rd century AD), a human being can be characterized as pro& brotov -if it had not existed yet, namely before birth: o4 v d ) o( / te ou) k h] n 65 .According to Hesychius, the adjective a) / mbrotov can only signify divine nature.On the basis of the written evidence, we are not able to establish whether he really identifies a) / mbrotov with a) ge& nnhtov or not.Of course, theogonies are handed down through the centuries.The question is: Can a) / mbrotov be identified with a) ) ge& nnhtov for gods and stand in opposition to broto& v and gennhto& v gunaiko& v, a favourite term of the book of Job? Inasmuch as the gods of the Greek Pantheon are not born from a woman, they can also be characterized as a) ge& nnhtoi, but not without exceptions.In this sense, a) ge& nnhtov corresponds semantically to a) / mbrotov.
Hesychius equates a) / mbrotov with a) / fqartov (= indestructible, invulnerable), qei= ov (= divine), and a) qa& natov (= immortal).We here can find the justification of the modern semantic equation of broto& v with mortal (Greek qnhto& v, qnhto_ v a) / nqrwpov in opposition to the divine adjective a) qa& natov).The equation in question presupposes a translation backwards from a) qa& natov.If broto& v could be derived from bibrw& skw, then their wordmeanings were the same, as claimed by Hesychius.But if bro& tov simply means blood, it indicates the setting of life, while broto& v designates living human beings.Of course, "mortality" belongs to the meaning of the term "man, human being", but "mortality" must not be necessarily seen as the main meaning of broto& v.In this case, we must take the following factors into consideration: establish a connection between bro& tov (= blood) 70 and broto& v, lead to the question: are they tautologies?Has broto& v really derived from bro& tov, or should we assume another word-origin and, therefore, other word-meanings?Is the derivation from bibrw& skw conceivable or should we assume Semitic origins?Does the Hebrew r#b form the basis of the Greek formation broto& v, or do both words, the Greek brotov and the Hebrew r#b, follow the same Semitic archetype, but with virtual consonantal variations?
It is typical in Homeric texts that broto& v and ai[ ma are not semantically connected, but both of them appear in war scenes.Thus I intend to consider broto& v as a derivative of the Greek verb marai/ nw/marai/ nomai referring to the withering of flowers and leaves.This word-origin has been assumed by ancient grammarians and has pragmatic consequences for the interpretation of the context in which the word is embedded.If blood is really the place of the life of every living being, man or animal, then water can also be seen as the place of the life for plants.Therefore, if the designation broto& v has been used for human beings, the image of man can be metaphorically associated with blossom-and flower-images connected to vital questions regarding the human existence.A flower is not a thorn used as a symbol for suffering.It symbolizes beauty and boldness, but also transience and transitoriness.The withering of a flower is not the end of life, but the beginning of a new life.From a blossom comes seeds, and from seeds new plants, and from plants spring up new flowers.The Aristotelian definition gives the word a new coinage in stricter connection with the triune nature of the human soul, as already discussed by Plato.This coinage goes beyond the lexical meaning and allows for a new interpretation of broto& v -in contrast to the occurrences of qnhto& v in Biblical writings.Broto& v is definitely not identical with qnhto& v, but with a) / nqrwpov.If the etymological definition of a) / nqrwpov (a) / nw + qrw& skw = he who is orientated towards the heaven) which is derived from Ancient Greek oral traditions and ascribed to Basilius the Great, a student of Ancient Greek authors in Athens, is correct, then broto& v is man who is not delivered to death, but to eternal life.Thus, we can understand why the Septuagint translators of the Hebrew Scriptures avoided qnhto& v 71 as an equivalent for the Hebrew #wn).

*
What is the reason for the English translation of broto& v into mortal and the German translation into sterblich?Are English translations simply depended on the German?Is there no exact English or German equivalent with identical fields of meaning?Did the English or German translators use a fairly similar equivalent, having missed the real sense of broto& v? Later borrowers of these translations probably have not been aware of this problem.Therefore, we have to leave the issue of finding a better equivalent in the hands of competent English or German philologists.

Similarities and dissimilarities: some fundamental considerations
In discussing the contextual meaning and sense of broto& v in Homer's Odyssey and LXX-Job 72 it may be helpful to begin with a few comments about the literary and ideological context in which the word is embedded.It is not my intention to provide a full 71 twm for qnhto& v only in Isa 51:12 (a) / nqrwpov qnhto& v).yx for q.only in Job 30:23 (oi) ki/ a ga_ r panti_ qnhtw| ~ gh= ) Md) for q. in Prov 3:13; 20:24.Further Wis 7:1; 9:14; 15:17. 2 Macc 9:12. 3 Macc 3:29.72 General features about the relationship between Homer and Old Testament, but without regard to the LXX, see Gordon (1955:43-108).On the Jewish reception of the Homeric epics in the Hellenistic Era see Dafni (2006b:34-54).
ISSN 1609-9982 = VERBUM ET ECCLESIA JRG 28(1)2007 explanation of all possible convergences or divergences, but to outline only those points which are significant for the present study.1) Both works, Homer's Odyssey and the book of Job, are poetical compositions which have undergone long processes of linguistic and mental refinement and canonical standardization.Their complex plots, consisting of heavenly and earthly events from divine and human perspective, revolve around a common ideological centre, namely the issue of theodicy 73 as an attempt to explain, in a reasonable manner, the relationship between human suffering and divine justice.
2) The beginning of each work is about a heavenly assembly and the special qualities attributed to both protagonists, Odysseus and Job.a) Within the framework of the Homeric anthropomorphism, attention is paid to Odysseus' similarity to the gods (Od 1:65s: qei/ oiov 74 ) with regard to particular sacred actions.The MT talks about "a perfect and upright man, fearing God and turning away from evil" 75 , while the LXX-interpretation offers: "a man blameless, true, godly, abstaining from everything evil" 76 , and despite tests "still clings to his perfection" (2:8).
answer, was developed in the prologues of both literary compositions.
a) The prologue of the Odyssey is about the assembly of the Olympian gods.In this assembly the suffering of Odysseus is assessed retrospectively and decided at the time of his homecoming.
b) The prologue of the book of Job, on the other hand, is about the heavenly assembly of God.In this assembly, Satan appears, and, as the result of his intervention, God permits the misfortunes and trials regarding Job's property, family and body.
4) In surveying these prologues, one is struck by two facts: Job is completely innocent; Odysseus, however, must suffer on account of his companions.Human hubris causing death is described in the Odyssey as follows: The companions of Odysseus, despite warnings, sacrificed and ate the cattle of Helios, and thereby committed an outrage.Because of this outrage they had to be destroyed (Od 1:7s.), but Odysseus alone survived.Odysseus dazzled the Cyclops Polyphemos, the son of Poseidon, who had already eaten two of his comrades, and wanted to kill and eat all of them.This is why Poseidon, the father of Polyphemos, prosecuted Odysseus and why Odysseus had to suffer under Poseidon's merciless wrath (Od 1:20s.).But Job suffers while resisting Satan's temptation and withstanding all his misfortunes and trials (Job 1:21; 2:10).
Odysseus overcomes Poseidon's terrible blows through the helpful intervention of Athena and his own inventive intelligence.Job fights against the attacks of Satan with patience and unshakable trust in God, although God did not give a sign of His helpful guidance and protection.
5) Essential for a proper understanding of the theodicy in Odyssey and Job is the fact that various approaches converge into contexts using broto& v with regard to the fundamental question about the relationship between human suffering and divine righteousness.
b) In the book of Job we can establish two different ways of looking at the theodicy-problem: The divine perspective in the prologue and the human one in the poetical parts.The word broto& v, as designating human beings, is not used in the prosaic but in the poetical formulations of the theodicy problem in the book of Job.

The prosaic parts of Job
First, the prosaic parts of the book call attention to the existence of Satan as an external cause of every evil and pain in human life.With God's permission he is allowed to mock Job.The problem is formulated as follows: Satan says (Job 1:11 parall.2:5): .Kkrbwy Kynp-l) )l-M) Neither the MT nor the LXX talks directly about blasphemy of God, and prefers the euphemistic expression "to bless God's face".This euphemism indicates a possible consequence of unrighteous human suffering, given that the trust upon God is not strong enough and lasts only as long as man accepts good things from God.By contrast, man's trustful reaction to evil events is the doxological expression, according to Job 1:21: The interpretative LXX addition (cf.Vulgate and the Latin Fathers) emphasizes God's free will and righteous judgement, notwithstanding evil against his righteous ones.
Job's wife, without being asked according to the MT and the LXX, seems to act as a mediator between Satan and Job, a role comparable to that of Eve in the temptation between the serpent and Adam.Her words in the MT-Job 2:9 are a resumption of Satan's words to God Job 1:11 parall.2:5: ei) po& n ti r( h= ma ei) v Ku& rion Myhl) Krb kai_ teleu& ta.tmw The LXX prefers the indeterminate rendering ei) po& n ti r( h= ma ei) v Ku& rion and dispels the suspicion that the woman once again acts as an instrumentum diaboli.This rendering must be understood as the sequel to a large LXX addition concerning the lamentation of Job's wife explaining her own suffering, which will be discussed in more detail in another article.
Job's response in interrogative form (Job 2:10) does not deviate from his initial position (Job 1:21): The LXX version seeks to avoid the suspicion that evil as well as good is caused by God and prefers the explanation e) k xeiro_ v Kuri/ ou (= from the hand of the Lord) instead of the Hebrew Myhl)h t)m (= from Elohim).This rendering is used to mark clearly cause and permission of evil with a strong emphasis on an intermediary between God and man, represented by Satan, as an unexpected visitor to God's heavenly assembly.

The poetical parts of Job
From another viewpoint and on a much narrower textual basis, the later poetical parts come closer to the problem of the theodicy.The poetical parts invoke a repeated expression, in the way of a refrain, spoken by a "night figure", Job and his friends.This expression can be seen as reminiscent of the above-mentioned aphorism of Zeus (Od 1:65s).
1) In Job 4:17 we read in the LXX: Ti/ ga& r; mh_ kaqaro_ v e) / stai broto_ v e) nanti/ on Kuri/ ou qdcy hwl)m #wn)h h2 a) po_ twñ e) / rgwn au) tou= a) / memptov a) nh& r; .rbg-rh+y wh#(m M) The question of the "night figure" according to the MT places emphasis on the reason that nobody can claim to be righteous and pure before God.The LXX replaces qdcy and rh+y by kaqaro_ v and a) / memptov, as well as hwl)m by e) nanti/ on Kuri/ ou.The ambiguous preposition e) nanti/ on accentuates not only that every human being stands before God, a declaration of God's omnipresence, but also the fact that under certain conditions human beings can revolt against Him (e) nanti/ on Kuri/ ou).These conditions have already been explained in Job's prologue.The adjective a) / memptov serves as a cross-reference to the prologue telling the reader to again look at Job's attributes as awarded by God and to remember that Job had never designated himself to be righteous before God.This fact gives the impression that the words of Eliphaz got inspired, not by God, but by Satan.In this way, the translator shows clearly the logical connection between the prosaic and poetic parts of the book.
2) In Job 9:2, we read in Job's monologue: pwṽ ga_ r e) / stai di/ kaiov broto_ v para_ Kuri/ w| .l)-M(#wn) qdcy-hmw In this more literal translation, special significance is given to the limitations of the human nature in spite of righteousness (pwṽ and para_ Kuri/ w| "how" and "with/by God").In Job 4:17, the opposition between God and man is emphasized; Job's words evoke a feeling of human belonging to God, but underline the difference despite closeness between God and man.
Accordingly, human nature is decisive for only limited possibilities of historical development.While a) / memptov for hkzy is reminiscent of LXX-Job 4:17 and the attributes awarded to Job by God in the prologue, the term gennhto_ v gunaiko& v -h#) dwly is used parallel to broto& v as a cross-reference to Gen 3:14ss.In connection with di/ kaiov -qydc, the term in question recalls the violation of the divine commandment "not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil".But Adam and Eve refuse to obey God and follow the godless will of the serpent, as well as their own desires.
5) Job 10:4a shows that the word choice in the LXX is not arbitrary.The question is about proswpolhyi/ a, namely to judge people according to their outer image and not according to their heart.This issue has been explained in TestJob 4:8, where a "night figure" tells Job that God judges and repays not according to the "outer image" but according to the total obedience to His law: a) proswpo& lhpto& v e) stin a) podidou_ v e( ka& stw| tw| ~ u( pakou& onti a) gaqa& .
It is noteworthy that this is the only case where broto& v replaces r#b.Although in the same context of God's judgement the word #wn) also occurs, translated now into a) / nqrwpov, an equivalent also determined by Aristotle (Topica 133a:32).In this sense, it could be considered as a sign of interchange between broto& v and a) / nqrwpov, and transferability of qualities of the term a) / nqrwpov to broto& v, and vice versa.Therefore, the question to ask is what kind of new coinages does the term broto& v receive in the Job-poetry?Apart from this it is also necessary to prove, on the basis of text examples, if we are able to progress from the word etymology to text ideology and theology.For this purpose, it is useful to look closer at Job 4:17 and its parallels in the book of Job.

CONTEXTUAL DEFINITIONS OF BROTOS IN JOB 4:17 AND PARALLELS
Both the author and the translator of the book of Job were influenced by Greek ways of thinking and were concerned about giving theologically well-founded short descriptive definitions of the attributes of broto& v in the context in which this term is used.These definitions must be first identified and the relationship between their components analysed in order to establish the specific theological meaning of broto& v in the LXX-Job.
1.The first definition is given in the context of Job 4:17.Job 4:6-7 and 4:12-21 play a decisive role in the understanding of this verse.Eliphaz wants Job to accept God's challenge and to examine whether he, in his everyday life, has ever justified God's punishment (Job 4:6-7).He does not even think about an external, personal cause of evil.His main question is: What does God's justice really mean?Eliphaz seems to understand the Ancient Oriental jus talionis quite literally and is convinced that injustice is automatically 77 followed by punishment: "Whatever someone sows, that is what he will reap" (Gl 6:7).After that he generalizes this opinion and tries to support it with the description of a dream (see above the original texts).The figure in the dream asks (4:17): MT: "Can a man seem upright to God, would anybody seem pure in the presence of his Maker?"LXX: "What, shall a BROTOS (Brenton: a mortal) be pure before the Lord? or a man be blameless in regard to his works?"The terms #wn) and rbg appear parallel in the MT.The LXX translates them into broto_ v and a) nh& r.In the Hebrew text #wn) is clearly used as a general term, while rbg has a special meaning.As a designation of God the rare poetical term hwl) is used, translated in the LXX into qeo& v, referring to God as the Creator of all the world.LXX-Job 4:17 entails two main components: a) the relationship of man (broto/ v) to the Lord of the whole world (ku& riov) 78 , characterized by the adjective kaqaro& v (=pure) and b) the deeds of a man (broto& v) and his relationship to his created environment, characterized by a) / memptov (=blameless).The rendering kaqaro& v ei) mi for the Hebrew verbal form qdcy is used only once in the LXX.Kaqaro& v ei) mi usually serves as an equivalent for rh+y (PC, Gstem), which is found in the next sentence translated into a) / mempto& v ei) mi (= to be blameless).The question is whether the LXX changes the verse ordering because of poetical freedom, or does it translate a source text with another verse ordering.In this instance, both textual intention as well as the contextual term definition of #wn) and rbg against broto& v and a) nh& r change.The relationship of #wn) to hwl) is determined on the basis of divine justice, while the relationship of rbg as wh#(m to his Creator is characterized in terms of human purity.77 Cf. Koch (1972).78 hwl) for ku& riov occurs in Job 3:4;4:9,17;5:17;6:4.8;10:2;11:5,6,7;12:6;15:8;16:20,21;19:6,21,26;22:26;27:3,8;31:6,33.Eliphaz and the "night figure" share the same opinion, but their statements of justification are different.Eliphaz' is grounded in human deeds and God's reaction.The "night figure", however, presupposes the general characteristics of human nature in comparison to the attributes of God the Creator, and emphasizes that no human being is righteous and pure before God.Complete righteousness and purity can only be considered as divine attributes, while human beings are marked with inherent imperfection in relation to God and are full of flaws dividing one from the other and from God. Broto& v is not only he who dwells in a clay hut, but he whose body is formed of clay (cf.LXX-Job 10:9).The MT underlines that all his foundation and support is nothing but clay.Likewise, Gen 2:7 says that human beings are formed of dust from the ground (-Nm rp( hmd)h) and Gen 3:19 adds that a man is dust and to dust he will return (bw#t rp(-l)w ht) rp( -gh= ei] kai_ ei) v gh= n a) peleu& sh| ).In this sense, LXX-Job 10:9 says: Mnh& sqhti, o( / ti phlo& n me e) / plasav, ei) v de_ gh= n me pa& lin a) postre& feiv.LXX-Isa 45:9 asks: Poi= on be& ltion kateskeu& asa w( v phlo& n kerame& wv; Wis 9:15, however, establishes: Fqarto_ n ga_ r swma baru& nei yuxh_ n, kai_ bri/ qei to_ gewdev skh= nov nou= n polufro& ntida, re-echoing the main theological intention of the just mentioned proto-canonical passages.Obviously, the Job-expression maintains close links to Genesis 2:7; 3:19 and Isaiah 45:9.The translator, when using ph& linov for rmx, joins terminology and ideology of LXX-Genesis and LXX-Isaiah in one sole expression of LXX-Job 4:19, which ends with the short remark: e) / paisen au) tou_ v shto_ v tro& pon.The MT #(-ynpl Mw)kdy describes a repeated, recurring phenomenon by means of an imperfect, namely that all human beings will one day be food for the worms, like the flowers will be smitten by a moth.In contrast, the LXX presents a unique event: He smote the brotoi/ like a moth.The question is: Who is he?God or Satan?The formulation can be seen as a hint about the role of the serpent in the life of mankind and God's punishment according to Genesis 3. The translator obviously keeps in mind that the life of broto& v in the context of LXX-Job is comparable to plants (see also  and not to animals, and therefore compares he who has smitten broto& v, not with a serpent, but with a moth.The consequences are described in various ways in Job 4:21-22.MT-Job 4:20 says wtky br(l rqbm.LXX-Job 4:20 prefers the philosophical expression "ou) ke& ti ei) sin" (= they no longer exist), which also recalls the imagery of flowers in blossom for only one day.The reasoning behind this picture is given as follows: kai_ a) po_ prwi/ qen e( / wv e( spe& rav ou) ke& ti ei) si/ n, para_ to_ mh_ du& nasqai au) tou_ v (LXX-Job 4:20 cf.25:4).This is explained in the LXX with the imagery from the plant-kingdom: For he blew upon them, and they are withered (e) nefu& shsen ga_ r au) toi= v kai_ e) chra& nqhsan), because they do not have any kind of wisdom in themselves (para_ to_ mh_ e) / xein au) tou_ v sofi/ an).In this way, the LXX transforms Genesis 2:9 leaving two kinds of interpretation open: God's breath of life upon man's face also means the gift of wisdom.Human beings prefer, however, knowledge of good and evil more than divine wisdom and, therefore, they die.The MT does not only talk about a lack of wisdom (4:21), but also about the lack of a saviour (4:20).Because of its clearly messianic character, this text has often been omitted in the critical commentaries, which give priority to the LXX-reading para_ to_ mh_ du& nasqai (hebr.(y#wm) instead of My#m.
3. The experience of evil in the world and misfortunes in the personal life leads Job to put the question about the lines marking the beginning and the end of broto& v (Job 10:18-22): 4. On the basis of LXX-Job 14:1s we can first establish an explicit connection between broto& v and the plant kingdom, respectively the flowers as a symbol for the shortlived man. .

dwm(y )lw lck xrbyw
In LXX-Job 14:2, broto& v is compared with a flower, which grows up and will wither away.But withering is not the end of a flower and death is not the end of broto/ v.This fact will be elucidated in LXX-Job 14:10ss: LXX-Job 14:10ss makes a clear difference between the life and earthly existence of broto& v.According to LXX-Job 14:12 the end of the earthly existence is not identical with the end of life.In this way the belief in the resurrection and the eternal life with God, is indirectly expressed.In contrast to other Old Testament passages, which refer to the resurrection of a chosen individual person, here the focus is on a general resurrection that will take place at the end of earthly existence, when the heavens will be joined together (LXX-Job 14:11).

OUTLOOKS
The Septuagint term broto& v therefore does not refer to the man who is to die, the mortal one.It expresses and emphasizes the beauty of a complete human being, as an excellent creature of God, who is transient but strives to eternity, who is vulnerable but wants to reach perfection, who is mortal and longs for immortality 79 .The ordering and the logic of the translation of the LXX-Job betrays the usage of extremely obstinate rules which seem mostly independent from the Hebrew source text (Vorlage).
The LXX translator offers his translation with a Genesis 2-3 and 6:3 motivation, as well as oriented interpretation of broto& v. Special attention has been paid to Genesis 2:7 and 3:19, where two border situations of human existence are described: the beginning of his life and the end.Reflections have been presented on the cause or the origin of the limitedness of human life.Human beings are limited, because they are creatures and are not the Creator.Human beings are more limited, because they let themselves be tempted by evil and enticed to contravene God's rules.
The textual treatment indicates the abilities of its translator, simultaneously a poet, or at least a student of great Greek poets.The translator attempts to show, by means of exclusive vocabulary, the theological reason that no human being can be absolutely pure and righteous before God.He is not content with the populist view of the theodicy problem, but he tries to provide a theological explanation with the assistance of Homeric vocabulary, in this case broto& v.The parameters of this explanation are depicted in the various broto& voccurrences of LXX-Job.
If the final form of the Hebrew book of Job must be dated during the Hellenistic period 80 , then we can argue that the translator of Job must have had profound knowledge of the Homeric epics.Not only the translator of LXX-Job, but also the author/redactor/editor of the Hebrew text seems to share this knowledge, since the Hebrew text was shaped with in view of the course of events occurring in the Homeric Epics, especially in the Odyssey.The possibility should not be excluded that the Odyssey influenced the end-redaction of the

80
Of course with deviations and divergences from other Old Testament texts, which may be depend on the argument about Greek Polytheism and Hebrew Monotheism.
ISSN 1609-9982 = VERBUM ET ECCLESIA JRG 28(1)2007 prosaic parts of the Hebrew book of Job, 81 because the time between the end-form of the Hebrew Vorlage of Job and its Greek translation could not have been so long.We can maintain that both authors/redactors/editors and the translator of the book of Job were hellenized and the book itself was a product of Hebrew religious belief in the soil of the Greek language and thought.Therefore, it is conceivable that the Job-translator consulted Homeric vocabulary to bring the content of the book of Job closer to the Greek reader.

81
It is remarkable that also the Pseudepigraphon TestJob 28:1, which explains exclusively the prosaic parts of Job (Rahmenerzählung) adopts from the Odyssey the scheme of twenty years wandering of Odysseus transforming it in twenty years suffering of Job.
ai[ ma and bro& tovHomeric word-combinations such as bro& tov ai( mato& eiv 66 , a) / mbrota ei( / mata 67 , a) / mbroton ai[ ma 68 qeoi= o 69 for i) xw& r, which ISSN 1609-9982 = VERBUM ET ECCLESIA JRG 28(1)2007 Broto& vis ephemeral because he is shortlived (10:20).He exists as long as he has not yet gone the way from which there is no return; the way to the land of deep darkness, where there is no light and everything dies (10:22), human or plant.
The opening question i( / na ti/ ou] n e) k koili/ av me e) ch& gagev, kai_ ou) k a) pe& qanon, o) fqalmo_ v de& me ou) k ei] den recalls Job 3:1ss.The whole passage, however, gives an explicit listing of what does not mean broto& v. "Non-exixtence" (ou) k w2 n) is here defined as one who has never been born from a woman and has come from the maternal womb directly into the grave, the matrix of the earth, the mother of all (10:19 cf.Sir 40:1).This first explanatio ex negatio of broto& v as gennhto& v gunaiko& v, reminds one of the philosophical term pro& brotov by Diogenes Laertius (Vitae VIII 45.4).A witness of human existence is that human beings have been born and are able to perceive and be perceived by other human beings (10:18.22).