Lexicography and the translation of ‘cedars of Lebanon’ in the Septuagint

Abstract

Botanical terms in the Septuagint reveal a mass of uncertain and sometimes contradictory data, owing to the translators’ inadequate and inaccurate understanding of plants. To understand the metaphorical and symbolic meaning of plants, the new approach represented by Biblical Plant Hermeneutics places the taxonomy of flora on a strong ethnological and ethnobotanical basis by studying each plant in situ and gathering indigenous knowledge about the plant and its context in the biblical text. This article applies this methodology to the translation of the Hebrew source text term אֶרֶז [cedar] in the Septuagint as κέδρος [cedar] or κέδρινος (the adjectival form of κέδρος) and its interpretation in the light of lexicography, which lead to contradictory identifications. A complexity theoretical approach is proposed to provide a solution for the various identification choices in the light of lexicography to communicate the cultural values of the Hebrew source text and its Greek translation.

Editorial theory and the range of translations for ‘cedars of Lebanon’ in the Septuagint

“…It seems where the translation of the term ‫ז‬ ‫רֶ‬ ֶ ‫א‬ in the Septuagint is the term κυπάρισσος it refers to a species of trees constituting the genus Cupressus of the cypress family, Cupressaceae. As discussed by Naudé and Miller-Naudé (2018), the term ‫ז‬ ‫רֶ‬ ֶ ‫א‬ in the Hebrew Bible refers to the genus and species Cedrus libani within the family of conifers, Pinaceae. In the cases 5.For an overview of recent developments in translation studies before complexity theory and their relationship to Septuagint studies, see Naudé (2008).…”

“…As shown in Naudé and Miller-Naudé (2018), the Hebrew term ‫ז‬ ‫רֶ‬ ֶ ‫א‬ [cedar] is translated in the Septuagint as κέδρος [cedar] or with the adjectival form κέδρινος in 65 cases. It was also shown that the botanical terms were interpreted and translated by the translators as a result of their own foreign frame of reference on the basis of the anachronistic and indeterminate botanical data available to them; they provided what they considered a suitable familiar or local substitute (see also Naudé and Miller-Naudé forthcoming a and b).…”

The Translation of Hebrew Flora and Fauna Terminology in North Sámi and West Greenlandic fin de siècle Bibles

“…A particular challenge relating to the examination of the translation of fauna and flora in the Hebrew Bible is the uncertainty regarding the meaning of many of the original Hebrew terms (see Naudé and Miller-Naudé 2018 for analysis of the problems relating to the translation of biblical fauna and flora terminology owing to these uncertainties; see e.g. Hope 2005;Koops and Slager 2012;Musselman 2012;United Bible Societies 1980;Zohary 1962Zohary , 1973Zohary , 1982 for discussion of the meanings of the original Hebrew terms based on historical, archaeological, and scientific evidence).…”

“…A particular challenge relating to the examination of the translation of fauna and flora in the Hebrew Bible is the uncertainty regarding the meaning of many of the original Hebrew terms (see Naudé and Miller-Naudé 2018 for an analysis of the problems relating to the translation of biblical fauna and flora terminology owing to these uncertainties; and see, e.g., Hope 2005; Koops 2012; Musselman 2012; United Bible Societies 1980; Zohary 1962; 1973; 1982, for discussion of the meanings of the original Hebrew terms based on historical, archaeological, and scientific evidence). Because much of this present-day knowledge was not available to the North Sámi translators or to Kleinschmidt and because their work was at least partially conducted indirectly via Scandinavian Bible translations, it is difficult to ascertain how familiar they would have been with the original referents of these terms in their ancient Near Eastern context.…”

“…The article fits into the broader study of techniques for dealing with geographically specific biblical terminology, particularly flora and fauna, in translation (see, e.g., Koops 1995, 1998; Du Toit and Naudé 2005; Miller-Naudé and Naudé 2018; Naudé and Miller-Naudé 2018). More specifically in the Arctic context, similar challenges have been noted in the translation of words for biblical flora and fauna such as “camel,” “sheep,” and so on, into twenty-first-century Inuktitut from Arctic Canada (Posner 2012) and in the early translation of biblical fauna into Cree (Careless 2001).…”