Theologica variatio? An examination of the variation in the Greek rendering of הוהי and םי ִהל ֱא in LXX Proverbs

precise understanding of the translation technique of the LXX translator, this article tried to formulate an answer to the reason behind this variation in Greek translation equivalents by examining the usage of κύριος and θεός for הוהי and םיִהלֱא in LXX Proverbs and especially those instances where the translator deviates from the standard procedure. This examination has indicated that both the divine names have been used interchangeably by the LXX translator and, contrary to the additional attestations of the divine name, do not reflect a nuanced theology vis-à-vis the MT. Contribution: This article fits perfectly within the scope of HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies because it focuses on the translation technique and theology of the LXX translator of Proverbs and thus contributes (a) to research regarding historical thought (textual transmission of biblical texts) and (b) source interpretation (because the LXX does not only reflect a translational but also an interpretative process, and this article in particular focuses on whether LXX Proverbs attests a different theology than its Hebrew counterpart).


Introduction
In recent years, scholars have tried to examine whether the different Septuagint (LXX) books reflect a theology that diverges from the Masoretic Text (MT). In the case of Proverbs, Johann Cook has made ample contributions on this topic, especially regarding the ideology of the LXX translator (e.g. Cook 1997Cook , 2006Cook , 2010Cook , 2017Cook , 2020. Recently, the author of this article has also examined whether LXX Proverbs attests a different theology than MT by examining the additional attestations of ὁ θεός and ὁ κύριος with no counterpart in MT (Beeckman 2020a(Beeckman , 2021. These studies have indicated that LXX Proverbs does indeed reflect a diverging, or more specifically, a more nuanced theology than the Hebrew text. The LXX translator has put more emphasis on the Jewishness of the translation by stressing the Solomonic authorship and the sapiential tradition of God as the One to fear (Beeckman 2020(Beeckman :386-387, 2021. Moreover, wisdom is specifically presented as revelatory wisdom (Beeckman 2020a:386). However, these studies only focus on the attestations of κύριος and θεός in LXX Proverbs without a Hebrew counterpart in MT and do not examine the rendering of Hebrew divine names into Greek. Thus, although the studies of Cook and this author have contributed to the field of the theology of LXX Proverbs, new research can shed more light on the matter.
It is generally accepted that the Greek equivalents of ‫יהוה‬ and ‫ִים‬ ‫ֱלה‬ ‫א‬ are, respectively, κύριος and θεός. However, throughout the LXX corpus, ‫יהוה‬ is often rendered by θεός and ‫ִים‬ ‫ֱלה‬ ‫א‬ by κύριος. As Martin Rösel has observed, these nonstandard renderings might reflect theological motivations on the part of the LXX translator(s) (Rösel 2007:419-422). In LXX Pentateuch, θεός is connected to the omnipotence In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the theology of the different Septuagint (LXX) books. In an attempt to examine whether the LXX Proverbs attests a different theology than the Masoretic Text (MT), I have recently analysed the plusses in LXX Proverbs containing ὁ κύριος and ὁ θεός. The results of these studies have indicated that the LXX translation of Proverbs attests a more nuanced theology than its Hebrew counterpart. However, these studies only focus on the attestations of κύριος and θεός in LXX Proverbs without a Hebrew counterpart in MT and do not examine the rendering of Hebrew divine names into Greek. It is generally accepted that the Greek equivalents of ‫יהוה‬ and ‫ִים‬ ‫לה‬ ֱ ‫א‬ are, respectively, κύριος and θεός. However, in LXX Proverbs, ‫יהוה‬ is rendered 18 times by θεός and ‫ִים‬ ‫לה‬ ֱ ‫א‬ three times by κύριος. In order to come to a more precise understanding of the translation technique of the LXX translator, this article tried to formulate an answer to the reason behind this variation in Greek translation equivalents by examining the usage of κύριος and θεός for ‫יהוה‬ and ‫ִים‬ ‫לה‬ ֱ ‫א‬ in LXX Proverbs and especially those instances where the translator deviates from the standard procedure. This examination has indicated that both the divine names have been used interchangeably by the LXX translator and, contrary to the additional attestations of the divine name, do not reflect a nuanced theology vis-à-vis the MT.
of God, whereas κύριος is used to express the compassionate nature of God's actions for Israel (Rösel 2007:423). Thus, studying the nonstandard renderings ‫/יהוה‬θεός and ‫ִים‬ ‫ֱלה‬ ‫/א‬ κύριος might not only shed light on the translation technique but also on the theology of the LXX translators.
In LXX Proverbs, there are several instances where ‫יהוה‬ is rendered by θεός and ‫ִים‬ ‫ֱלה‬ ‫א‬ by κύριος. In order to come to a more precise understanding of the translation technique and (possible) theology of the LXX translator, this contribution will try to formulate an answer to the reason behind this variation in Greek translation equivalents by examining the usage of κύριος and θεός for ‫יהוה‬ and ‫ִים‬ ‫ֱלה‬ ‫א‬ in LXX Proverbs and especially those instances where the translator deviates from the standard procedure. Firstly, the instances where ‫יהוה‬ is rendered by θεός and ‫ִים‬ ‫ֱלה‬ ‫א‬ by κύριος will be registered. Afterwards, they will be evaluated. By doing so, this examination hopes to come to a better characterisation of the translation technique of LXX Proverbs and might also shed some additional light on the theology of the Greek text.

The registration of ‫/יהוה‬θεός and ‫ִים‬ ‫לה‬ ֱ‫/א‬κύριος in LXX Proverbs
It is David-Marc d'Hamonville who has noted a discrepancy in the rendering of ‫יהוה‬ and ‫ִים‬ ‫ֱלה‬ ‫א‬ (d'Hamonville 2000:46). In a table regarding the Greek translation of the Hebrew divine names in Proverbs, he records that ‫יהוה‬ is rendered 18 times by θεός and ‫ִים‬ ‫ֱלה‬ ‫א‬ one time by κύριος (d'Hamonville 2000:46). However, apart from giving the sections of the book wherein the divine names are attested, he does not indicate the precise verses. Therefore, before we can start evaluating the different rendering of ‫יהוה‬ and ‫ִים‬ ‫ֱלה‬ ‫א‬ in LXX Proverbs, one needs to discern in which verses the LXX translator provides a nonstandard equivalent for the divine name. By making use of the Hatch and Redpath (HR) concordance (1998) as well as BibleWorks (2016), we arrive at the following verses (Table 1).
Thus, although d'Hamonville's analysis of the Greek rendering of divine names is correct with regard to the nonstandard equivalent ‫ִים‬ ‫ֱלה‬ ‫/א‬κύριος (3:4), his amount of ‫/יהוה‬θεός seems to be incorrect. Contrary to d'Hamonville's 18 instances of ‫/יהוה‬θεός, we find 19 cases. It must be noted that HR records 21 instances (Hatch & Redpath 1998:642). The first difference is verses 6:16 and 17:3. Hatch and Redpath notes 6:16 and 17:3 as instances where ‫יהוה‬ is rendered by θεός. However, θεός is only attested in codex Vaticanus (B). Rahlfs (ed. 2006) notes κύριος in these verses. Secondly, there is a discrepancy in numbering with regard to chapter 16. Hatch and Redpath notes the following verses of chapter 16, where θεός is an equivalent of ‫:יהוה‬ 16:1 (MT 16:9), 16:1 (MT 15:33) and 16:5. However, HR's numbering is off. The Greek text recorded in HR of 16:1 is 15:29b (MT 15:29) in Rahlfs, for the first instance, and for the second, it is 15:33 (LXX and MT). Moreover, for 16:2, HR records this verse as 16:4 and notes that there is no Hebrew text in the MT. This is incorrect, because 16:2 in the LXX represents 16:2 in the MT, although the LXX presents a variant reading. Now that we have registered all the instances where the LXX attests θεός for ‫יהוה‬ and κύριος for ‫ִים‬ ‫לה‬ ֱ ‫,א‬ we can examine why the LXX opted for these renderings for these Hebrew divine names. 1

The evaluation of ‫/יהוה‬θεός and ‫ִים‬ ‫לה‬ ֱ‫/א‬κύριος in LXX Proverbs
Before looking at the nonstandard renderings ‫/יהוה‬θεός and ‫ִים‬ ‫ֱלה‬ ‫/א‬κύριος, it is important to examine how these renderings have been explained by scholars in earlier studies. One of the most prominent scholars in the field of divine names and their Greek rendering in the LXX is Wolf Wilhelm Grafen Baudissin (1929). In four volumes, he meticulously examines the usage of the Greek divine name κύριος in the LXX and the development of the Hebrew divine name in Ancient and Hellenistic Judaism. Although his works are focused on κύριος, he also deals with the occurrences of θεός in the different LXX books. Regarding LXX Proverbs, he notes that the renderings of θεός for ‫יהוה‬ and κύριος for ‫ִים‬ ‫ֱלה‬ ‫א‬ have to be explained as a result of the translator's translation technique (Baudissin 1929:264). According to him, both Greek names denote the same thing and have been used interchangeably by the translator (Baudissin 1929:264, 268, 270-271). 2 D'Hamonville, on the other hand, does not ascribe the nonstandard renderings of ‫יהוה‬ and ‫ִים‬ ‫ֱלה‬ ‫א‬ to the translator's translational activity but explains them as a result of a redactional work that happened to the Hebrew text after the LXX translation when compiling the different sections of the Hebrew book of Proverbs, which is reflected in the MT (d'Hamonville 2000:46-47). This redactional activity is especially visible in chapters 15:27-22:17, where only the divine name ‫יהוה‬ is attested and which is rendered 22 times by κύριος, 12 times by θεός and one time not rendered at all (d'Hamonville 2000:46). Although this might be the case, this does not account for the nonstandard renderings in the other parts of LXX Proverbs.

Categorising the nonstandard renderings ‫/יהוה‬ θεός and ‫ִים‬ ‫לה‬ ֱ‫/א‬κύριος
Thus, the question remains open. Are these renderings sheer randomness from the part of the translator because both Greek divine titles denote the same thing in the eyes of the translator, as Baudissin asserts, or can we detect a systematic 1.HR (1998:642) also notes 6:16 as an instance where ‫יהוה‬ is rendered by θεός.
However, θεός is only attested in Vaticanus (B). Rahlfs notes κύριος in this verse. The same is true for 17:3.

2.'[…] [W]eil […]
dem Überzetzer (ὁ) θεός und (ὁ) κύριος gleichwertig waren, ist es wahrscheinlicher, daß θεός für jhwh auf Willkür des Übersetzers, als daß es auf einer Textveränderung im Hebräischen beruht' (Baudissin 1929:264). Fox (2015:251) also indicates that the LXX translator of Proverbs does not make a distinction between the two Greek divine names. translation technique? In order to formulate an answer to this question, all the nonstandard renderings of ‫יהוה‬ and ‫ִים‬ ‫ֱלה‬ ‫א‬ will be examined. Firstly, a description of the Hebrew and its Greek rendering will be provided; afterwards, the nonstandard renderings will be categorised and evaluated on the basis of this description. Since ‫ִים‬ ‫ֱלה‬ ‫/א‬κύριος only occurs once, in 3:4, no categorisation will be made. For this case, only a description and evaluation will be provided ( Table 2).

The description, categorisation and evaluation of the nonstandard renderings ‫/יהוה‬θεός
Based on the description in Table 2, we can make the following observations concerning the renderings of ‫יהוה‬ by θεός: accusative (τὸν θεὸν) and in 19:17 with δανείζω ('to lend or borrow money') where θεός is attested in the dative (θεῷ).
On the basis of this preliminary categorisation, we can observe that the LXX translator has rendered ‫יהוה‬ by θεός in a variety of contexts. In order to examine whether he opted to render ‫יהוה‬ by θεός in these specific instances, for example, anthropomorphisms, prepositions, the fear of the Lord, etc., we will investigate whether we can find counterexamples in LXX Proverbs whereby the translator provided the standard equivalent rendering ‫/יהוה‬κύριος for the categories mentioned above. If a counterexample is found, that category cannot count as a context wherein the LXX translator preferred to render ‫יהוה‬ by θεός instead of κύριος.
θεός in connection with a preposition: As described supra, θεός is used eight times as a rendering of ‫יהוה‬ in connection with a preposition (παρά + dat., παρά + gen. and ἐπί + dat.). Often the preposition is not attested in the Hebrew text. This is the case in 16:2, 16:5 and 17:15, where the translator opts for παρά + dat. In the latter two verses, ‫יהוה‬ ‫תועבת‬ is rendered accordingly by ἀκάθαρτος παρὰ θεῷ. In the other instances, the preposition is attested in the MT: ‫ליהוה‬ in 21:3 is rendered by παρά + dat., ‫מיהוה‬ in 18:22, and 19:19 is translated by παρά + gen., ‫אל-יהוה‬ by ἐπί + dat. in 3:5 and ‫ביהוה‬ by ἐπί + dat. in 16:20. Table 3 represents a clear overview of θεός as a rendering of ‫יהוה‬ in connection with a preposition (Table 3).
Concerning the rendering of ‫יהוה‬ by κύριος in connection with a preposition, we can make the following observations. The divine name κύριος in connection with a preposition is used 13 times. In five instances, παρά + dat. is used to render ‫ליהוה‬ ( Table 4 helps to visualise the attestations of κύριος as a rendering of ‫יהוה‬ in connection with a preposition (Table 4).
When comparing the usage of a preposition + θεός and preposition + κύριος in the LXX text, it is clear that both the divine names are used in connection with a preposition to   render the same Hebrew terms, that is, ‫יהוה‬ with or without a Hebrew preposition. Although the similar usage is striking, there is a difference that needs to be addressed, that is, the usage of the preposition ἐπί. In all the occurrences of ἐπί + a divine name, θεός is always used in the dative form, whereas κύριος is used in the accusative form. 4 The word pair ἐπί κυρίῳ only occurs in the form of ἐπὶ τῷ κυρίῳ (with the article) in the LXX, and the majority of the instances are found in LXX Psalms. 5 The dative form of κύριος is only used 13 times in LXX Proverbs: five times following the particle παρὰ (see supra), eight times after the noun βδέλυγμα ('abomination') (see 11:20, 12:22, 15:8.9.26, 20:23, 21:27 and 27:20). It is interesting to note that only κύριος is used in connection with βδέλυγμα and never θεός.
Although there is a small difference in usage concerning the declension of the divine name after the preposition ἐπί, with regard to the usage of Greek prepositions + divine name, whereby ‫יהוה‬ with or without preposition is attested in the MT, we observe no clear technique of the translator to opt for θεός or κύριος.

θεός as used in expressions denoting 'the fear of the Lord':
In 1:7, 3:7, 15:33 and 24:21, θεός is used as a rendering of ‫יהוה‬ in expressions that denote the fear of the Lord (Table 5).
As is evident from the table supra, in these instances the LXX translator consistently rendered the noun ‫ָאה‬ ‫ִרְ‬ ‫י‬ ('fear') each time by the Greek equivalent φόβος ('fear'), ‫יהוה‬ by θεός.
Thus, as was the case with the first category, here as well the translator opted for both κύριος as well as θεός as a translation of ‫יהוה‬ without distinguishing between them.
θεός as a possessive genitive: Next to the possessive genitives in expressions concerning the fear of the Lord, θεός is used as a possessive genitive in anthropomorphic statements (5:21 and 21:1) and to convey a curse of God (3:33).
θεός as (in)direct object of a verb: Although we have already discussed several examples of θεός as a direct object of a verb in the context of 'the fear of the Lord' (i.e. 3:7 and 24:21, see supra), there are two other instances where θεός is used as a direct or an indirect object. In 19:3 with αἰτιάομαι ('to accuse'), whereby θεός occurs in the accusative (τὸν θεὸν) and in 19:17 with δανείζω ('to lend or borrow money') where θεός is attested in the dative (θεῷ). For the direct object of a verb, several counterexamples of κύριος as a rendering of ‫יהוה‬ can be found in LXX Proverbs: 3:9 (τιμάω, 'to honour'), 14:2 (φοβέω, 'to fear', see supra), 20:9 (ὑπομένω, 'to endure') and 28:5 (ζητέω, 'to seek'). For the indirect object of a verb, no counterexamples of κύριος as a rendering of ‫יהוה‬ are found in LXX Proverbs. The only instances where κύριος is used in the dative are in connection with the prepositions παρά and βδέλυγμα (see supra) and thus never in connection with a verb. Moreover, θεός is also used as a direct object in connection with prepositions (παρά and ἐπὶ) and occurs only as an indirect object of a verb once elsewhere in Proverbs: 30:1. In this verse, which is obscure in Hebrew, τοῖς πιστεύουσιν θεῷ is used to render ‫,לאיתיאל‬ which the translator reads as ‫אל‬ ‫לאיתי‬ (Fox 2015:379).

The description and evaluation of the nonstandard renderings ‫ִים‬ ‫לה‬ ֱ‫/א‬κύριος
After having evaluated the nonstandard rendering of ‫/יהוה‬θεός, we will describe and evaluate the nonstandard rendering ‫ִים‬ ‫ֱלה‬ ‫/א‬κύριος, which only occurs in 3:4 ( Table 6).
In 11:1 and 20:10, ‫יהוה‬ is attested instead of ‫.אלהים‬ The phrase ‫אלהים‬ ‫בעיני‬ occurs only in Proverbs 3:4. 10 On the other hand, the 9.The noun κύριος, however, is attested multiple times without a Hebrew counterpart (Beeckman 2021 4). Moreover, ἐναντίον θεοῦ is not attested in the LXX. Thus, the majority of the instances where ‫בעיני'‬ + a divine name' is used, the LXX translators opted for ἐνώπιον κυρίου. Therefore, the choice of the LXX translator of Proverbs to render ‫אלהים‬ ‫בעיני‬ by ἐνώπιον κυρίου does not seem to be odd at all and seems to be a common rendering for Hebrew phrases of the form ‫בעיני'‬ + a divine name'.

Conclusion
The goal of this article was to examine the nonstandard renderings ‫/יהוה‬θεός and ‫ִים‬ ‫לה‬ ֱ ‫/א‬κύριος in LXX Proverbs in order to determine whether these renderings can shed more light on the translation technique and theology of LXX Proverbs. After registering 19 instances of ‫/יהוה‬θεός and only one instance of ‫ִים‬ ‫לה‬ ֱ ‫/א‬κύριος, this article has described, categorised (except ‫ִים‬ ‫לה‬ ֱ ‫/א‬κύριος) and evaluated them. In order to observe whether these renderings are because of a conscious translation technique applied by the LXX translator, this article tried to find counterexamples for each category, that is, θεός in connection with a preposition, θεός as used in expressions denoting 'the fear of the Lord', θεός as a possessive genitive, ὁ θεός as the subject of the verse and θεός as (in)direct object of a verb. On the basis of the evaluation, the following results were obtained: 1. With regard to ‫/יהוה‬θεός, counterexamples were found for each instance where the LXX translator used κύριος instead of θεός as a rendering of ‫.יהוה‬ Only for 3:33 and 19:17, no counterexamples were found. Nonetheless, in these cases, no explanation can be given as to why the translator opted for θεός instead of κύριος; 2. For ‫ִים‬ ‫ֱלה‬ ‫/א‬κύριος, it has been argued that ἐνώπιον κυρίου was a common rendering for the form ‫בעיני'‬ + a divine name'.
On the basis of these results, one can conclude that the LXX translator did not differentiate between the two divine names θεός and κύριος. Although Baudissin did not provide a detailed analysis of the nonstandard renderings ‫/יהוה‬θεός and ‫ִים‬ ‫לה‬ ֱ ‫/א‬κύριος, he was right when asserting that both Greek names denote the same for the translator and have consequently been used interchangeably in LXX Proverbs   (Baudissin 1929:264, 268, 270-271). Thus, although they might be suspected to do so at first sight and contrary to the additional attestations of both Greek divine names in LXX Proverbs without Hebrew counterpart, these renderings do not reflect a distinct theology than the Hebrew text (contrary to Rösel's observation in LXX Pentateuch).
Given the result that the LXX translator of Proverbs used these terms interchangeably, it will be worthwhile to conduct the same study on LXX Job. The results of the study on LXX Job can be compared with the results of this study in order to contribute to the discussion of a single translator for LXX Proverbs and LXX Job.