This essay was published in Noah and His Book(s), edited by Michael E.

Stone, Aryeh Amihay, and Vered Hillel,

copyright 2010 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase copies of this book, call 877-725-3334 [toll-free
in North America] or 802-864-6185, fax 802-864-7626, or visit the SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org.
Noah and the Flood in the Septuagint
Benjamin G. Wright III
Te story of Noah and the food in the Septuagint (lxx) runs essentially from
Gen 5:28 with the birth of Noah to the end of Gen 9. Noah and/or the food
are mentioned in several other places in the lxx, but those references do not
provide any information that extends beyond what is already in the Masoretic
Text (mt). If one were to make a summary statement about the lxx version of
the story, one could say that the Greek translator of Genesis strives to render
the Hebrew text before him with fdelity and that he does not incorporate
developing or existing nonbiblical traditions about Noah into his work.
Robert Hiebert characterizes the Greek translation of Genesis on both
lexical and syntactical grounds as a strict, quantitative representation of
its source text,
1
a description that highlights the translators isomorphic
approach to the process of translation and that warrants the descriptive meta-
phor interlinear, as it is used in the New English Translation of the Septuagint
(NETS).
2
As the term interlinear implies, the translators usual method was
to translate at the level of the word or phrase and rarely at the clause or sen-
tence level, resulting in a Greek that is frequently awkward and stilted, even
though meaning can be wrung from it. So, to provide just one example of rigid
adherence to the word level of the source text, in Gen 9:5 the mt has
, from every animal. Te lxx translator, here, in fact, working below the
word level, renders from the hand of all the ani-
mals. If we ignore the lxxs plural animals, necessitated by the construal of
as all rather than every, we see that the translator has divided the initial
Hebrew compound preposition into its constituent parts and rendered each
1.

Hiebert 2007, 1. All translations of the Septuagint are taken from Hieberts NETS
translation. For more on NETS, see the NETS website at ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/. Transla-
tions of the Hebrew are from the nrsv or are adaptations of the nrsv.
2. Pietersma and Wright 2007, xiiixx. It is important to emphasize that interlinear
is a metaphor for the translation process, not a claim that there ever was any physical object
that had the Hebrew and Greek in an interlinear relationship.
-137 -
138 NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)
This essay was published in Noah and His Book(s), edited by Michael E. Stone, Aryeh Amihay, and Vered Hillel,
copyright 2010 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase copies of this book, call 877-725-3334 [toll-free
in North America] or 802-864-6185, fax 802-864-7626, or visit the SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org.
separately, producing a Greek phrase that looks decidedly odd.
3
Yet a transla-
tor who worked in this manner, such as the one who rendered Genesis into
Greek, did not always produce slavish representations of the Hebrew parent
text. All one has to do is to look at the Hebrew and Greek of Genesis synopti-
cally to see that the lxx translator does at times depart from his established
patterns; these, of course, are ofen the most interesting places to study. Even
so, it is possible that some of these deviations could refect the translators
deliberate interpretation of the source text. Te presence of exegesis, however,
must be demonstrated to be part of the translators intent at the production
stage of the translation (as much as that can be determined), not a factor in its
subsequent reception history.
4
Tis situation certainly obtains in the lxx of
Genesis, in which we fnd mostly isomorphic representation of the Vorlage but
also many variations of diferent kinds, only a few of which, however, could
constitute deliberate exegesis of the source.
5
When we look specifcally at the story of the food in the lxx, we can
identify a number of places where the translator nuanced the Hebrew Vorlage.
Most of these instances represent eforts to clarify or make sense of a text that
the translator fnds unclear or difcult to understand. Such cases result in a
Greek translation that might not map wellgrammatically, syntactically, or
lexicallyonto the Hebrew text, but they do not refect deliberate exegesis on
the translators part. So, whereas the story of Noah and the food does not ofer
the kind of developments of the biblical fgure known in other Second Temple
Jewish texts, we still fnd a number of interesting adjustments, we might say,
to the Hebrew biblical text.
At the very beginning of the Noah story, his birth, the translator encoun-
ters a difculty. Since he transliterates the name Noah, he cannot reproduce
exactly in Greek the etymological explanation of the mt, which has And he
called his name Noah [], saying, Tis one will comfort us [] from our
works and from the toil of our hands. Te Hebrew play is lost in the Greek,
And he named his name Noe [], saying, Tis one shall give us respite
[] from our labors and from the pains of our hands. Moreover,
the Hebrew understands the name to come from the verb to comfort,
3. Te example is taken from Hiebert 2007, 3.
4. For a discussion of this problem with regard to the Septuagint, see Pietersma 2006
and Wright 2008.
5. In what follows, I try to focus on those passages that have implications for the pic-
ture of Noah and the food. Tere are dozens of small, and for this discussion inconsequen-
tial, diferences between the mt and the lxx, and I do not treat them here. For a detailed
treatment of all of the diferences, both large and small, between the mt and the lxx, see
Wevers 1993, 72126. A more general list, without much detailed comment, is given in
Lewis 1968, 8292.
WRIGHT: NOAH AND THE FLOOD IN THE SEPTUAGINT 139
This essay was published in Noah and His Book(s), edited by Michael E. Stone, Aryeh Amihay, and Vered Hillel,
copyright 2010 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase copies of this book, call 877-725-3334 [toll-free
in North America] or 802-864-6185, fax 802-864-7626, or visit the SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org.
whereas the Greek correctly seems to presuppose a hiphil of the verb .
Unfortunately, we cannot know for certain if the translator had a parent text
of or if he arrived at this etymology on his own.
6
Genesis 6:14 establishes the reasons for Gods decision to destroy the
earth, and while not directly about Noah, two observations seem worthwhile
here. First, in verse 3, the Hebrew has God, due to the illicit mating between
the sons of God and the daughters of men, decide to reduce the span of
human lifetimes to 120 years: My spirit shall not abide in humankind []
forever, for they are fesh; their days shall be 120 years. Te Greek makes a
subtle change: , in these men. Te use of the demon-
strative adjective suggests that, rather than humankind generally, the lifetimes
of the illicit ofspring will be limited.
7

Second, the Hebrew of 6:4 refers to two distinct groups: the Nephilim,
who were on the earth in those days; and the ofspring of the sons of God
and human women who are called mighty men [] that were of old,
warriors of renown. Te mt is not clear about where the Nephilim came
from, who they were, and if they had any relationship with the mighty men
mentioned later in the verse. Te lxx resolves this uncertainty by calling both
groups giants, thereby equating the Nephilim and the mighty men/warriors
of the mt. Loren Stuckenbruck observes that the text is ambiguous about how
these giants contribute to the story of the food and that there might have
been reason to think that some of them survived the food. In Gen 10:811,
Nimrod, a postdiluvian descendant of Noahs, is said in the mt to be the frst
on earth to become a mighty warrior (). Te lxx translator, apparently
connecting Nimrod with the mighty men of Gen 6:4, renders was the frst
to be a giant on the earth. Later, in Num 13:33, part of Calebs report to Moses,
Caleb says, Tere we saw the Nephilim. Again, the lxx translates giants.
In the same chapter, Nephilim get connected with the sons of Anak whom the
spies also saw (see 13.22, 33[mt]), and this connection enables broader links
between the Nephilim and other groups mentioned in the Bible.
8
Of course,
Gen 6:14 had a long and fascinating exegetical life in early Judaism, espe-
cially in the version found in 1 Enoch.
9
Tus, the translators collapsing of two
separate groups in the mt, Nephilim and mighty men, into the same group,
giants, seems to refect broader exegetical traditions known to him that he
incorporates into his translation, but still without extensively departing from
his usual translation methodology.
6. Tis observation on etymology comes from Wevers 1993, 7374.
7. Wevers 1993, 77; Lewis 1968, 86.
8. Stuckenbruck 2000, 35658.
9. For a more extensive study of the myth contained in Gen 6:14, see Reed 2005.
140 NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)
This essay was published in Noah and His Book(s), edited by Michael E. Stone, Aryeh Amihay, and Vered Hillel,
copyright 2010 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase copies of this book, call 877-725-3334 [toll-free
in North America] or 802-864-6185, fax 802-864-7626, or visit the SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org.
When we come to the beginning of the food narrative proper, the
translation exhibits several attempts at clarifcation, most of which do not
substantially alter the Hebrew. Several places merit comment, however. In 6:6,
the mt reports that God repented that he had made humans and that he was
grieved in his heart. Te lxx reduces the anthropopathism of the Hebrew
by rendering then God considered that he had made humankind on the
earth, and he thought it over. Later in verse 7, God repented in the mt but
became angry in the lxx, in this case not eliminating any anthropopathism
but still masking the statement that God had changed his mind about creating
humans, as was made in the mt.
10
Te Greek text of 6:9 describes the now fve-hundred-year-old Noah as a
righteous () and perfect man, one who was well pleasing to God (
). Tis Greek maps directly onto the Hebrew
in a quantitative representation, but the Greek verb does not match
the Hebrew lexically, even if it does get at the intention of the Hebrew. Here
the translator probably harks back to the near context of 5:22, 24, where Enoch
is said to have walked with God and where the translator uses the identical
verb, but this lexical equivalence is more widely characteristic of the Genesis
translator (cf. 17:1; 24:40 [both of Abraham]; 48:15 [Abraham and Isaac]).
It seems to be a default rendering for him when used in conjunction with
God.
11
Verse 11 establishes a verbal contrast between the wrongdoing ()
of humankind and the righteous () man who will save humankind.
Afer Gods command to build the ark and his instructions for doing it,
God says to Noah, And for my part, see, I am going to bring the food [
]. Te presence of the article contrasts with the Hebrew, in which
God warns that he will cause a food. Apparently by the time of the translator,
the story was already well known as the story of the food, and this name is
refected even in the translation.
12
Te mention of a covenant in 6:18 is the
frst time the word occurs in the lxx.
Afer Noah builds the ark, God commands him to enter, and the Hebrew,
followed by the Greek, notes that it was in the six-hundredth year of Noahs
life that the food waters began. Te Hebrew specifcally notes that it was the
second month and the seventeenth day when the rain came, but the Greek
10. Wevers 1993, 7980.
11. In only one case is the Hebrew verb not rendered this way in Greek, 13:17, but this
verse is not about walking with God but passing through the land. One could specu-
late about the reasons for this equivalence. Perhaps the translator wanted to reduce the
anthropomorphic implications of walking with God, or perhaps he was trying to make
the Hebrew idiom more transparent to the Greek reader, making it clear why these charac-
ters deserved special favor from God.
12. Wevers 1993, 85.
WRIGHT: NOAH AND THE FLOOD IN THE SEPTUAGINT 141
This essay was published in Noah and His Book(s), edited by Michael E. Stone, Aryeh Amihay, and Vered Hillel,
copyright 2010 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase copies of this book, call 877-725-3334 [toll-free
in North America] or 802-864-6185, fax 802-864-7626, or visit the SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org.
specifes the twenty-seventh day of the second month. Here the Greek trans-
lator seems to reveal a penchant for calendrical order. It is important to note,
however, that we fnd no evidence that the translator imports into the Noah
story broader controversies about calendar, that is, solar versus lunar, such as
we encounter elsewhere in early Judaism.
13
He does know, however, that in
8:14 the earth is dry in the second month and the twenty-seventh day, a year
later. He thus alters the initial date so that the period from the beginning of
the rains to the earth becoming dry extends for exactly one year rather than a
year and ten days.
14
Afer the food waters subside and the ark comes to rest, God commands
Noah to leave the ark and, according to the mt, Bring out with you every
living thing that is with you of all feshbirds and animals and every creeping
thing that creeps on the earthso that they may abound on the earth, and be
fruitful, and multiply on the earth. Te lxx says essentially the same thing,
except for two crucial diferences. Te translator omits they may abound,
and then he construes the fnal two verbs as imperatives, not as third-person
perfects, as in the mta perfectly legitimate way to read the consonantal
text.
15
Te result, however, is a divine command that mirrors the one given to
the frst two people in Gen 1:28, increase and multiply on the earth.
16
Te
disembarkation of Noah, his family, and all the animals from the ark con-
stitutes a new creative moment, one that will eventuate in a repopulation of
the earth with all its various forms of life. Te appearance of these same two
imperatives just a bit later in 9:1 reemphasizes this second creation, especially
since in the lxx the entire command repeats verbatim that given to Adam
and Eve in 1:28: Increase and multiply, and fll the earth and subdue it. Te
Hebrew, by contrast, says, Be fruitful and multiply, and fll the earth, and it
lacks the fnal command to subdue the earth. In the lxx Noah has become a
new Adam.
17
Afer the food narrative comes the story of Noahs drunkenness. Te lxx
represents the Hebrew closely. In one place, however, the lxx might be inter-
preted as being a bit more condemnatory of Noahs behavior than the mt. In
9:24 the Hebrew notes simply that Noah awoke [] from his wine. Te
lxx, on the other hand, reports that Noah sobered up () from his
13. On calendrical issues, see Nadav Sharon and Moshe Tishels Distinctive Tradi-
tions about Noah and the Flood in Second Temple Jewish Literature in this volume.
14. Wevers 1993, 93.
15. Ibid., 109.
16. Te lxx also interprets the frst verb of the pair in Hebrew, be fruitful, with
increase.
17. Cf. 4 Ezra 3:1011.
142 NOAH AND HIS BOOK(S)
This essay was published in Noah and His Book(s), edited by Michael E. Stone, Aryeh Amihay, and Vered Hillel,
copyright 2010 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase copies of this book, call 877-725-3334 [toll-free
in North America] or 802-864-6185, fax 802-864-7626, or visit the SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org.
wine. John William Wevers interprets this verb as indicting Noahs behavior
more directly than the mt, but it could just as easily be said that, by using this
verb, the translator is playing out the implications of the story as he reads it in
the mt.
18
Even if it is not an indictment, however, at the very least the Greek
translator, by not using some verb for awakening, makes explicit the Hebrew
idiom.
Looking back at the lxxs story of Noah and the food, given the meth-
odological caveats I noted earlier, we see that the translator has really not
taken any great liberties with the Hebrew text. He clarifes, explains a bit, but
ultimately tries to give a faithful rendering of the Hebrew text. Te real devel-
opment of the fgure of Noah will take place elsewhere in the Jewish literature
of the period.
Te preserved fragments of Aquila, the so-called Teodotion, and Sym-
machus do not add much to the discussion. As one might expect, Aquila
moves in the direction of an even more rigid representation of the Hebrew text.
So, for example, in Aquilas Greek text Noah walks with God (),
a more literal representation of the Hebrew. He preserves the distinction of
the Nephilim and the warriors/heroes of Gen 6:4. In addition, he etymolo-
gizes both names, translating Nephilim by , as if the name came
from the root , and rendering the word for heroes, , as . Little
remains of Teodotion, and what is available does not reveal much about the
translation of the Noah story. Finally, the extant fragments attributed to Sym-
machus demonstrate the most willingness to try to get at the sense of the
Hebrew, and in some cases one might argue for deliberate exegesis. So, for
example, the of 6:4 become in Greek ,
sons of those who have dominance, a rendering that might refect an exe-
getical interpretation. On the other hand, just as in the lxx where the use of
to be well pleasing to God looks like an attempt to get at the gist of walking
with God, Symmachuss translation, , he followed, seems to
have the same intent.
19
18. Wevers 1993, 124.
19. Lewis 1968, 9092, labels as interpretation several passages attributed to Sym-
machus that are like this one. But he defnes interpretation as eliminating obscurities,
avoiding anthropomorphisms that were ofensive to its Greek speaking reader, and at times
rendering a diferent text from the present MT (92). Indeed, even these three translation
strategies are of diferent orders, and I would hesitate, for instance, to call rendering a text
diferent from mt interpretation.