INTRODUCTION
Ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible constitute an interesting field for exploring cross-cultural encounters, since the translation process inevitably involves a significant variation of nouns, concepts and contents, that create a kind of ὁὂeὀ ‘ἴὁὄdeὄlἳὀd’ ἴetweeὀ cultuὄeὅ, wheὄe elemeὀtὅ ὁf continuity and discontinuity can be more clearly observed. These transformations are particularly evident in the study of fauna (and flora) nomenclature. Zoological (and botanic) jargon reflects specific semantic fields and cultural paradigms that underpin every language.1 Moreover, the animal imagery is a symbolic referent for operations of identification and separation, and thus constitutes a privileged subject matter for each cultural encyclopedia, holding an extraordinary semiotic productivity.2 In the present study, I provide a selection of examples that demonstrates how the translation process fostered cross-cultural interactions in antiquity. I analyze different translation strategies underpinning some onomastic choices made by the Septuagint (LXX) translators that involve the animal lexicon specifically. In particular, I focus on some unexpected correspondences between the source and the target text, where anomalous or fantastic animals, monstrous beings and exceptional creatures appear or, by contrast, disappear in the Greek translation.
I will focus on the Septuagint of Job as an initial test case, given its significance in the study of animal onomastic in the Hebrew Bible more broadly. The author of Job draws on animal metaphors throughout the book, most notably in the specific section that focuses ὁὀ Yhwh’ὅ uὀiὃue ἳctivity ἳὅ a creator (38-41): this long passage contains many references to the biblical fauna. Moreover, the
unique character of the Septuagint of Job, which has long been recognized not only as a “free”, but also as a “literary” translation,3 offers a privileged and important insight into cross-cultural
interactions between Hebrew tradition and Greek culture.
By comparing the Hebrew and the Greek text, one can easily observe that it is difficult, to the modern reader, to recognize the animals being referred to by several Hebrew terms; they are often
hapax legomena or rare names, which could be vaguely known, or unknown, to the ancient translator as well. In such cases, a creative, free, or “anaphoric”4 translation often occurred, apparently without a clear textual criterion. In other cases, the Hebrew referent was probably known to the translator, but for contextual reasons he decided to search for an equivalent term. Several animals belonging to what has been described as the “Job’ὅ ἴeὅtiἳὄy”5 in the LXX later became very popular in Early Christian exegeὅiὅ, the ὂὄὁἴlemἳtic ὁὄ “ἳὂὁὄetic” animal being particularly suitable for symbolical interpretation.