An analysis of the Greek rendering of the Hebrew legal aspects in Ruth 4 : 7 for characterising the Greek translator ’ s translation technique

Being a literal and relatively precise translation of the Hebrew text (Knobloch 2007:239; Thackeray 1909:13; Quast 2006:125), the Septuagint (LXX) of the book of Ruth attests divergences or variants in relation to the Masoretic text (MT) in the details of the text (Bons 2011:701). These variants, if not inconsistent or linked to a different Hebrew Vorlage, could be explained as a translator’s choice to promote clarity, to add a particular nuance or to introduce innovation at the narrative level of the text.


Introduction
Being a literal and relatively precise translation of the Hebrew text (Knobloch 2007:239;Thackeray 1909:13;Quast 2006:125), the Septuagint (LXX) of the book of Ruth attests divergences or variants in relation to the Masoretic text (MT) in the details of the text (Bons 2011:701). These variants, if not inconsistent or linked to a different Hebrew Vorlage, could be explained as a translator's choice to promote clarity, to add a particular nuance or to introduce innovation at the narrative level of the text. This is, for instance, the case in the legal process that runs through the fourth chapter of the book. Amongst all of the legal aspects illustrated in Ruth 4, this contribution will present a case study and it will limit the analysis to the interjection in Ruth 4:7 that explains the legal custom. Therefore, this study will first present this verse as it is attested in the MT and LXX. Consequently, the equivalence between the Hebrew text and its Greek rendering will be examined and evaluated. By doing so, this contribution aims: (1) to offer a more nuanced characterisation of the translation technique of the Greek translator of the LXX-Ruth, by taking into account not only the categories of 'literalness' and 'freedom', but also the 'faithfulness' and eventually the 'creativity' of the translator (Ausloos & Lemmelijn 2014:54-55) and (2) to gain a clearer understanding of the nuances, innovations and specificities of the LXX-Ruth.

The interjection in Ruth 4:7: Explaining the legal custom 1
At the gate of Baithleem, in front of the elders of the city, Boos invites Hidden One ‫ִי(‬ ‫ֹנ‬ ‫ְמ‬ ‫אַל‬ ‫ִי‬ ‫ְֹלנ‬ ‫פּ‬ in the MT and κρύφιε in the LXX) to acquire the field from the hand of Noemin and from Ruth. (NETS). Based on personal preference, only the name of Ruth has been changed: from 'Routh' to 'Ruth'. Moreover, this research has been conducted with the support of Hebrew and Greek lexica. For the Hebrew terms, these are: Brown-Driver-Briggs (BDB), the Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (DCH) and the Hebrew and Aramaic

1.Biblical names follow a New English Translation of the Septuagint
Being a literal and relatively precise translation of the Hebrew text, the Septuagint (LXX) of the book of Ruth attests divergences or variants in relation to the Masoretic text (MT) in the details of the text. These variants, if not inconsistent or linked to a different Hebrew Vorlage, could be explained as a translator's choice to promote clarity, add a particular nuance or introduce innovation at the narrative level of the text. This is, for instance, the case in the legal process that runs through the fourth chapter of the book. Amongst all of the legal aspects illustrated in Ruth 4, this contribution presents a case study, focusing on the interjection in Ruth 4:7 that explains the legal custom. After analysing the equivalence between the Hebrew text and its Greek rendering, this article offers several new insights aimed to produce a more nuanced characterisation of the translation technique of the Greek translator of the LXX-Ruth and a clearer understanding of the nuances, innovations and specificities of the LXX-Ruth.
He will also need to acquire Ruth herself in order to raise up the name of the deceased on his inheritance (4:5). Hidden One replies by declining Boos' suggestion because he would ruin his inheritance (4:6). In 4:7, the narrative is interrupted to describe the legal custom in Israel in former times. The text of 4:7 is shown in Box 1. 2

The legal custom in former times in Israel
By examining the equivalence between the MT and LXX, we immediately notice a first textual variant: whereas the MT only attests ‫ֹאת‬ ‫,ז‬ the demonstrative feminine pronoun (this), which certain authors consider as having a neutral sense (Hubbard 1988:247;Sasson 1989:141;Schipper 2016:168), the LXX has the syntagm τοῦτο τὸ δικαίωμα.
The noun δικαίωμα, from the root of δίκη, indicating both 'rule, custom' and 'justice', means 'ordinance, decree' and also 'custom' and 'rightful due'. According to certain authors (LEH ad loc, Joüon 1986:85), the latter two meanings of δικαίωμα would be Semitisms, based upon the meaning of the Hebrew ‫ָט‬ ‫פּ‬ ְ ‫שׁ‬ ִ ‫.מּ‬ However, several studies have indicated that the meaning 'custom, rule' of δικαίωμα can no longer be considered a Semitism. Rather, it should be understood as the result of the development of the Greek language, with δικαίωμα initially indicating the 'supporting document' in a legal process, which assumed, as here in the LXX-Ruth, the meaning of a(n) 'ordinance/law' (Cadell 1995:207-221;Montevecchi 1996:71-80;Tov 1999:112).
Having established the semantic value of the textual variant in the LXX, the question arises whether or not the Greek translator had a different Vorlage, and, if so, how he rendered it. Amongst the scholars focusing on the Hebrew Bible (HB), only Joüon (1986:85) considers the text of the LXX as the 'most original'. Indeed, by referring to the LXX-Ruth and to Jeremiah 32:7-8, where the acquisition of a camp is related to ‫ָה‬ ‫לּ‬ ֻ ‫ְא‬ ‫ַגּ‬ ‫ה‬ ‫ַט‬ ‫פּ‬ ְ ‫שׁ‬ ִ ‫מ‬ ['right of redemption'], he suggests that, in Ruth 4:7, the masculine noun ‫ָט‬ ‫פּ‬ ְ ‫שׁ‬ ִ ‫מ‬ is lacking and that, therefore,‫ֶה‬ ‫ְז‬ ‫ו‬ ‫ָט‬ ‫פּ‬ ְ ‫שׁ‬ ִ ‫ַמּ‬ ‫ה‬ would have been the 'primitive reading' (Joüon 1986:85). Contrary to this hypothesis, Campbell (1975:147), used. However, in order to avoid an excessive number of footnotes, no specific references will be offered. These will be given only where the lexica are not unanimous regarding the meaning of a term.
2.The Hebrew text follows the Biblia Hebraica quinta (BHQ) (De Waard 2004), while the Greek text follows the critical edition of the Göttingen Unternehmen (Quast 2006). Hubbard (1988:247), Sasson (1989:141), Bush (1996:233), Schipper (2016:168) andDe Waard (2004) stress the feminine gender of the pronoun and consider the reading of the MT the original one while that of the LXX a paraphrasis of the (proto)-MT. When examining what LXX-scholars have written, Bons (2011Bons ( :708, 2014 and Ziegert (2008:243-244) consider τὸ δικαίωμα as an addition of the LXX for the purpose of clarifying the sentence. Among the LXX-scholars, Assan-Dhôte and Moatti-Fine (2009:106) also seem to consider it an addition. After indicating that this noun does not have an equivalence in the MT, they argue that the choice of this term reflects the desire of the translator to award a juridical value to the ancient practice described in this verse. Quast (2006:125), instead, does not include this plus among the additions of the LXX-Ruth.
When we examine the critical edition of the HB, we notice that De Waard (2004) does not refer to Hebrew witnesses through an equivalent for τὸ δικαίωμα. He indicates, however, that Vulgata, Targum and Peshitta agree with the reading of the LXX.
By turning the attention on the critical edition of the LXX, we notice that no textual variants are attested for the reading τὸ δικαίωμα. This reveals that there was no hesitation in the Greek transmission to adopt this syntagm, even among the hexaplaric witnesses, which attempt to offer a more faithful rendering of the Hebrew text. We can, therefore, consider that the presence of a noun indicating a(n) 'ordinance/custom/rule' is geographically broadly attested, but only in the versions. Therefore, it is difficult to discern whether or not the LXX-translator had a different The lexeme ‫ָה‬ ‫לּ‬ ֻ ‫ְא‬ ‫גּ‬ is derived from the root ‫ָאַל‬ ‫גּ‬ and indicates '(the right to/price of) redemption'. Constructed with the suffix of the first personal singular, this noun is also attested in 4:6, when Hidden One asks Boos to 'redeem his redemption'. In this regard, the lexica and commentaries register nuances in the meaning (Hubbard 1988:248-249;Joüon 1986:84-85); whereas in 4:6, ‫ָה‬ ‫לּ‬ ֻ ‫ְא‬ ‫גּ‬ indicates the 'right of redemption', in 4:7, it refers to the 'act of redemption' (of the field). The LXX-translator renders ‫ָה‬ ‫לּ‬ ֻ ‫ְא‬ ‫גּ‬ by the noun ἀγχιστεία in both instances, therefore, without distinguishing between the two nuances of meaning. This noun renders the Hebrew equivalent faithfully only from a grammatical point of view. 4 Semantically, in fact, the Greek noun, derived from the root ἄγχι ['near'], refers to the sematic domain of a 'close familiar relationship', meaning therefore the 'close kinship', 'rights of kin, rights of inheritance', and 'right/responsibility of the next of kin'. A shift in meaning can therefore be observed; whereas the legal custom in the MT is linked to the 'right/act of redemption', in the LXX, it concerns instead 'the right/ responsibility of the next of kin '. 5 The second topic of the legal custom, ‫ה‬ ‫מוּרָ‬ ‫,תְּ‬ means 'exchange, exchanging, recompense'. The LXX-translator renders it by ἀντάλλαγμα. This noun is composed of the adjective άλλος ((an)other) with a guttural suffix, employed to convey the idea of exchange; the suffix -μα, indicating the result of the action; and the adverb and prefix ἀντά, developing a distributive value (cf. Assan-Dhôte & Moatti-Fine 2009: 106-107; Heilmann 1963: §302). This means, according to the lexica, 'that which is given or taken in exchange'. Therefore, on the basis of these meanings, the use of ἀντάλλαγμα as an equivalent for ‫ה‬ ‫מוּרָ‬ ‫תְּ‬ can be considered a literal, faithful and unique rendering. 6 The aim of the legal process is expressed by the following final proposition: ‫ָר‬ ‫ב‬ ‫ָל-דָּ‬ ‫כּ‬ ‫ֵם‬ ‫ַיּ‬ ‫ְק‬ ‫ל‬ in MT and τοῦ στῆσαι πᾶν λόγον in the LXX. Here, the infinitive pi`el from ‫קוּם‬ ‫ֵם(‬ ‫יּ‬ ַ ‫ְק‬ ‫)ל‬ , constructed with the preposition ְ ‫ל‬ and meaning 'to fulfil, to 4.It should be observed, for example, that the participle qal from the same root ‫ל(‬ ֵ ‫ֹא‬ ‫,)גּ‬ indicating the 'redeemer', has three different equivalents in the LXX: six times ἀγχιστεύς (3:9, 12 [bis]; 4:3, 6, 14); once ἀγχιστευτής (4:1) and twice the substantivate participle from the verb ἀγχιστεύω (2:20; 4:7). From a grammatical standpoint, only the substantivate participle from the verb ἀγχιστεύω renders the Hebrew participle faithfully and literally and refers to a generic relative, when Noemin introduces to Ruth the existence of one of the kinsmen (2:20). This form appears also in the verse, object of this analysis (4:7) but it does not have an equivalent in MT. The two nouns (ἀγχιστεύς and ἀγχιστευτής), on the other hand, refer to a specific person: either Boos, Hidden One or Obev (4:14). In comparison to the participle, the substantive accentuated the identity and role of the person, more than the actions that he accomplishes or will potentially accomplish. Moreover, Assan-Dhôte and Moatti-Fine (2009:43) argued that the participle is used with a direct complement; without any complement, it is a noun to be employed. Concerning the two nouns (ἀγχιστεύς and ἀγχιστευτής), we observe that they can be considered as synonyms. However, the occurrence of ἀγχιστευτής in 4:1 -containing four syllables, compared with the three-syllabled of ἀγχιστεύς and attested only here -may be a stylistic expedient to emphasise the character when he first appears. Dorival (2020:143) underlines also that 'The ἀγχιστευτής is more ἀγχιστεύς than the ἀγχιστεύς'. confirm, to establish, to impose', 7 is rendered by the genitive article τοῦ and the infinitive aorist active στῆσαι (from ἵστημι), meaning 'to set up, to establish'. The direct object ‫ָר‬ ‫ב‬ ‫ָל-דָּ‬ ‫,כּ‬ meaning not only 'every speech/saying/word' but also 'every matter/affair', is rendered by the adjective πᾶς (at the accusative singular, meaning 'every') and the noun λόγος, meaning 'computation, relation, exploitation, debate, continuous statement, verbal expression, utterance, saying, subject-matter, expression' (DELG: ad loc). Now, in the MT-Ruth, ‫ָר‬ ‫ב‬ ‫דָּ‬ is also attested twice in 3:18, when Noemin invites Ruth to sit until the ‫ָר'‬ ‫ב‬ ‫דָּ‬ ["matter" and also "word"] turns out' because Boos will not rest until the moment when the ‫ָר‬ ‫ב‬ ‫דָּ‬ has been accomplished (verb ‫ָה‬ ‫ָל‬ ‫.)כּ‬ 8 In both cases in 3:18, the Hebrew noun is rendered in the LXX by ῥῆμα, meaning, in the occurrences outside the LXX, 'spoken word, saying'. As for its meaning in the LXX, scholars have underlined that ῥῆμα expresses the same duality as ‫ָר‬ ‫ב‬ ‫,דָּ‬ by referring to both the word and the object of this word, while λόγος seems to be more suitable in reference to the law (Dogniez & Harl 1992:41-43). On the basis of the given discussion, it appears that whereas the MT attests a lexical link between the words of Noemin and the legal action described in 4:7 through the usage of the noun ‫ָר‬ ‫ב‬ ‫,דָּ‬ the LXX-translator does not maintain this lexical link. In this case, he nuances the meaning of his text 9 : in 3:18, he uses ῥῆμα, which indicates primarily the 'matter' (and lastly 'words') 10 and which assumes the nuance of the meaning of the Hebrew Vorlage. In 4:7, instead, the translator renders ‫ָר‬ ‫ב‬ ‫דָּ‬ by λόγος, designating the 'spoken word, the statement' and stressing the juridical context, which appears in these verses.

5.From
By considering the whole rendering of the final proposition, it can be asserted that it reveals a literal and faithful translator who, by making specific lexical choices, adapts the meaning of his text to the context and stresses the juridical value of the custom described.

The description of the custom
What follows is a description of the custom in Israel: the first sentence refers to the action of a man in removing his sandal ‫ֲלֹו(‬ ‫ַע‬ ‫נ‬ ‫ִישׁ‬ ‫א‬ ‫ַף‬ ‫ָל‬ ‫,)שׁ‬ while the second refers to the action of giving it to a neighbour ‫ֵהוּ(‬ ‫ע‬ ‫ְרֵ‬ ‫ל‬ ‫ן‬ ‫ָתַ‬ ‫ְנ‬ ‫.)ו‬ In both sentences in the MT, it is impossible to discern which is the man among those involved in the legal action (Boos, Hidden One, the elders or the whole city) who accomplishes the action of removing his sandal and giving it to a neighbour (Hubbard 1988:250;Sasson 1989:142-143;Zakovitch 1999:161). In Greek, the 7.Several authors consider this verb an Aramaism and some point out that this verb is typical of late Hebrew (See Joüon 1986:85;Sasson 1989:142;Zakovitch 1999:160). Campbell (1975:147) and Hubbard (1988:249) considered the verb an Aramaism, but argued that it is not necessarily related to late Hebrew.
It emerges that the conjunction καί is not attested in the MT. In the Hebrew text, only the Masoretic accentuation (the zaqep qaton on the last syllable of ‫ָר‬ ‫ב‬ ‫)דָּ‬ links the final preposition to what proceeds in the verse, because the following sentence is not introduced by any conjunction. It seems, therefore, that the LXX-translator adds the conjunction to his text in order to clarify the construction of the sentences 11 and, by so doing, confirms the structure of the verse, which is later made explicit by the Masoretic accentuation. The imperfect medium indicative third person singular ὑπελύετο (from ὑπολύω, meaning 'to loosen beneath or below') is the equivalent of the qatal qal ‫ַף‬ ‫ל‬ ָ ‫שׁ‬ and renders faithfully, but not literally (which would be an aorist), the iterative value of the Hebrew verb.
The subject of the verb is ὁ ἀνήρ, the equivalent of the Hebrew ‫ישׁ‬ ִ ‫.א‬ Here the article, expressed in Greek, has no equivalent in the Hebrew text 12 and plays its role in determining the noun to which it is linked. The article refers, indeed, to the person, who will be specified subsequently. In this way, whereas in the MT, it is impossible to understand clearly who accomplishes a certain act, the article seems to clarify the people and their role in the legal actions. As for the direct object that follows (τὸ ὑπόδημα αὐτοῦ), it represents a literal and faithful rendering of ‫ֲלֹו‬ ‫ַע‬ ‫.נ‬ The second action of the legal custom (καὶ ἐδίδου τῷ πλησίον τῷ ἀγχιστεύοντι τὴν ἀγχιστείαν αὐτοῦ) partially represents a faithful rendering of the (proto-)MT: here, the conjunction καί and verb ἐδίδου (third person singular of the imperfect from δίδωμι, meaning 'to give') are adequate equivalents for ‫ן‬ ‫ָתַ‬ ‫ְנ‬ ‫.ו‬ The following dative τῷ πλησίον τῷ ἀγχιστεύοντι τὴν ἀγχιστείαν αὐτοῦ, the rendering of ‫ֵהוּ‬ ‫ע‬ ‫ְרֵ‬ ‫,ל‬ deserves a more elaborate description and analysis.
The adverb πλησίον ['near'] is preceded by the article and therefore, assuming a nominal value ('the one who is near' and therefore 'the neighbour'), is the expected equivalent of the noun ַ ‫ע‬ ‫.רֵ‬ The following syntagm, that is, τῷ ἀγχιστεύοντι τὴν ἀγχιστείαν αὐτοῦ, lacks an equivalent in the MT. It is composed by the present participle singular dative from ἀγχιστεύω, in apposition to πλησίον, meaning 'who is the next of kin' and, in this case, where the noun is followed by the object ἀγχιστεία, 'who exercises the rights and responsibilities of a kinsman'.
In the LXX, therefore, the nearby one who receives the sandal is the next of kin (τῷ ἀγχιστεύοντι) who now exercises the responsibility/right of his role (τὴν ἀγχιστείαν αὐτοῦ the translator seems to introduce these textual variants 13 to clarify the dynamic of the exchange and to solve the incertitude related to the identification of the characters, as attested in the MT. Although the specification of the direct complement, τὴν ἀγχιστείαν αὐτοῦ, may appear redundant, it clarifies the new dynamic of the exchange: ὁ ἀγχιστεύων 14 does not refer to Hidden One, as is always the case in Ruth 4, but rather to Boos, who is assuming the role of a kinsman and is now exercising his rights and responsibilities (τὴν ἀγχιστείαν αὐτοῦ), as demanded in 4:6.
The identification of the characters involved in the legal custom is now clear: ὁ ἀνήρ, who takes off his sandal and gives it to his neighbour, is Hidden One; the neighbour, who is also the next of kin (τῷ ἀγχιστεύοντι) and who is assuming and exercising his rights (τὴν ἀγχιστείαν αὐτοῦ) is, instead, Boos. 15 The description of the legal custom, therefore, reveals a translator who can be considered neither literal nor faithful, by considering the incertitude concerning the role of the characters in the MT and, therefore, the difficulty of discerning whether or not the meaning given by the Greek translator is the meaning of the MT. In this case, he clearly makes an exegetical choice and, by resorting to creativity, attributes the actions to one or other of the characters involved in the legal action.

The final statement
Finally, the last sentence of this verse represents a statement, linked in the MT to the beginning of the verse through the repetition of ‫ֹאת‬ ‫ז‬ [proceeded by the conjunction] and of the complement of place ‫ל‬ ֵ ‫א‬ ‫רָ‬ ְ ‫ִשׂ‬ ‫ְי‬ ‫.בּ‬ Between these two syntagms, the ‫ה‬ ‫עוּדָ‬ ‫,תְּ‬ connected to the root of ‫ֵד‬ ‫ע‬ (cf. 4:9, 11) and determined by the article ‫ה(‬ ‫עוּדָ‬ ‫ַתְּ‬ ‫,)ה‬ refers to 'attestation, testimony'. The Greek equivalent (καὶ τοῦτο ἦν μαρτύριον ἐν Ἰσραήλ) maintains the link to the beginning of the verse through the repetition of the pronoun τοῦτο and the complement of place, ἐν Ἰσραήλ. Between them, the imperfect of the verb εἰμί in the third person singular (ἦν) makes the nominal sentence of the MT explicit, while the noun μαρτύριον, in agreement with MT, refers to the 'testimony, proof' of the legal custom.

Conclusion
By analysing the Hebrew text of Ruth 4:7 and its Greek rendering in the LXX, this article aimed to offer a more nuanced characterisation of the translation technique of the Greek translator of the LXX-Ruth and establish a clearer 13.Concerning τῷ ἀγχιστεύοντι, BHQ does not attest to any textual variants here.
Concerning the Greek text, it seems that only A does not attest τῷ ἀγχιστεύοντι. Concerning τὴν ἀγχιστείαν αὐτοῦ, we should first examine whether or not the LXXtranslator had a different Hebrew Vorlage. However, under the current state of research, there is no evidence to suggest this. When we turn our attention to the critical edition of the LXX, we notice that only manuscript 407 does not attest the accusative.
14.The participle is attested in the plural form in 2:20.
15.We should also note that the personal pronoun of the third person singular, αὐτοῦ, has an equivalent in the MT, with the suffix personal pronoun of the third person singular ‫ְל(‬ ‫ֵר‬ ‫ֵע‬ ‫.)וּה‬ However, in the MT, the suffix is linked to the neighbour and refers to ‫ִא‬ ‫;שׁי‬ in the LXX, it is linked to τὴν ἀγχιστείαν and refers to ὁ πλησίον ὁ ἀγχιστεύων.
understanding of the nuances, innovations and specificities of the LXX-Ruth.
When focusing on the first aim of this article, the study on the interjection in 4:7 has revealed a faithful and literal translator in the rendering of: (1) the local and temporal syntagms (ἔμπροσθεν, ἐν (τῷ) Ἰσραήλ) at the beginning and end of the verse; (2) the purpose of the legal custom (τοῦ στῆσαι πάντα λόγον); (3) the first part of the description of the legal custom (καὶ ὑπελύετο ὁ ἀνὴρ τὸ ὑπόδημα αὐτοῦ); and (4) the exchange (ἀντάλλαγμα) and the 'testimony' (μαρτύριον). A free translator can also be identified, when considering the rendering of one of the topics of the legal custom (ἀγχιστεία). He also applies a creative approach to clarify his text. That is, for instance, the case in the addition of: (1) the conjunction καί; (2) the verb (ἦν); (3) the article (ὁ ἀνήρ); and (4) the syntagm τῷ ἀγχιστεύοντι τὴν ἀγχιστείαν αὐτοῦ. In one case (the plus of τὸ δικαίωμα), however, the incertitude regarding the Vorlage employed by the translator cannot be used in order to characterise the translation technique of the LXX-translator.
When we turn our attention to the second aim of this article (the nuances, innovations and specificities of the LXX-Ruth), it emerges that this text offers a clearer identification of the characters involved in the legal action (ὁ ἀνήρ, τῷ ἀγχιστεύοντι τὴν ἀγχιστείαν αὐτοῦ). The juridical value of the custom described here is also stressed by: (1) the plus of τὸ δικαίωμα; (2) the lexical choices of λόγος; and (3) the reference to the neighbour, who is the one who assumes and exercises his rights and responsibilities (τῷ ἀγχιστεύοντι τὴν ἀγχιστείαν αὐτοῦ). The text of the LXX becomes therefore more intelligible for a Greek-speaking, Jewish target audience, who were probably unfamiliar with Jewish law. However, whereas the legal custom in the MT concerns the 'redemption' (of a field and a widow), in the LXX, it refers to the dynamics of 'close kinship'.
Although this article has provided new insights into the translation technique of the LXX-translator of Ruth, the results of this analysis, based only on the interjection in Ruth 4:7, do not offer a complete picture of the translation technique of the LXX-Ruth and the nuances and specificities of this text. It should be underlined that this is not the aim of this article. This contribution would rather pave the way and open up a new path for a deeper, more detailed investigation into the LXX-Ruth. Analysing and evaluating the other legal aspects in Ruth 4 and situating them in the whole depiction of the LXX-Ruth becomes therefore a necessary step in order to obtain a more complete characterisation of the Greek translation of Ruth.