Translation: Jubilees 17:5–18:19 & Gen 22:1–19 (LXX) | The Binding of Isaac
A Translation with Notes on Grammar and Content | The Importance of the Jewish Pseudepigrapha
Introducing Jubilees & the Pseudepigrapha
Jubilees is a book from the corpus known as the Jewish Pseudepigrapha, which is a collection of works that were written spanning from the Intertestamental Period—the time between the Old and New Testament, about 400 years, traditionally from the prophet Malachi (c. 420 BC) till John the Baptist (early 1c. AD)1—to after the New Testament (ca. 3c. BC–3c. AD).2 These texts are largely neglected because most are not canon for the vast majority of Christians.3 That, and finding a modern translation can be difficult and costly.4
Jubilees, in particular, is speculated to have been written around the second century BC in Hebrew.5 No manuscript (ms) of the Hebrew has survived, and our best witness to the text is in Ge‘ez (ግዕዝ), classical Ethiopic. There are surviving fragments of Greek and Latin, but my translation will be of the Ge‘ez since it contains the complete narrative.6
A retelling of Genesis, Jubilees is also known as the “Little Genesis.” The book details what was revealed to Moses when he was on Mount Sinai for 40 days (cf. Exod 24:18): “And the Lord revealed to [Moses] both what (was) in the beginning and what will occur (in the future)...” (Jub 1.4b, Wintermute). Because the author is heavily dependent on Scripture, the additions to the narrative are fascinating. Jubilees traces major events in Genesis (Creation, Adam & Eve, Noah, Abraham, Jacob & family, and Moses), which is essentially the Scripture text with authorial additions and emendations. There is a large emphasis on the calendar, annual festivals,—“Jubilees”—and the etiology of these celebrations.
The explanatory expansions provide a glimpse into the history of Jewish thought at the time and illustrate that these stories were not set in stone; it was acceptable to tamper with the biblical text to convey one’s own historical and theological views.
The Importance of Intertestamental Works | The Evolution of Jewish Thought
Regardless of canonicity, these documents—along with the Deuterocanonical books (the Apocrypha)—are imperative for understanding the literary world of the New Testament because they show a development of interpretation methodology and understanding within Judaism. If you believe Jewish thought remained static from the Persian period until the Romans and the composition of the NT, that would be like saying American thought has not evolved since the Colonial Period and the Founding Fathers.
Texts from antiquity never remained stagnant, meaning their use and interpretation were ever-evolving, especially when later readers would impose their views and bias onto the document—modern works fall into this same interpretive vortex, e.g., the U.S. Constitution7 or the Lord of the Rings.
As for their relationship with the Hebrew Bible, many works in the Jewish Pseudepigrapha are retellings of biblical accounts with added commentary. James Kugel describes it as follows,
Retelling, it should be said, was actually the preferred form of biblical commentary in this period. That is, instead of citing a particular verse and explaining its meaning (as our modern-day, and some ancient, commentators do), Second Temple writers preferred to retell the text, substituting for a problematic word or phrase one that would be understood by all readers... This form of writing (Jubilees is only one example) has been termed the “Rewritten Bible,” but it was almost never a rewriting for rewriting’s sake; by retelling the text in their own words, commentators were able to explain things and eliminate any perceived inconsistencies or problems.8
If you compare the translation I provided of Gen 22 (LXX—the Septuagint) with the Binding of Isaac in Jubilees, you can see the clear dependence on the account in Genesis, with significant authorial expansion and interpretation.
The Evolution of Language and the Interpretive Nature of Translation
It is important to see how a text has evolved not only in tradition but also in translation history. How a translator renders a document into another language is in many ways an interpretation because there is not always a one-to-one option, the meaning of a word could be obscured,—the potential “correct” options can be numerous or what the word signifies has been lost—or the grammar/syntax is ambiguous offering multiple possible readings.9 The goal of translation is both to reflect what the author intended and to make it intelligible for your target audience.
If you want to have the full experience, read a translation of Genesis 22 (Hebrew), then Genesis 22 (Greek), and finally Jubilees—you will notice striking differences in the transmission of the story.
It is crucial to understand how language and the meaning of words evolve over time—lexicography. Lexicons and dictionaries exist to show how a word’s meaning has transformed, how it can be used in various circumstances, and how it is employed outside of its normal parameters (slang) or in different regions.
For our particular context in Jubilees, the word “ram,” κριός (krios),—the animal Abraham sacrifices in place of Isaac—was used by Aelian (3c. AD) to represent a “Sea Monster” in De Natura Animalium:10
And the Sea Monster (κριὸς) is a terrible animal and brings about danger, even if he appears from afar. There is confusion in the sea and rough waters, which he produces. (KSV)
If one were to translate Gen 22:14 as “sea monster,” you would have a poor and ridiculous translation.
And, if one were to translate Aelian’s account of this animal as “ram,” you would have an equally terrible and preposterous translation. When opening a lexicon, you are not free to choose the definition you prefer or fancy; rather, the translator must deduce what the author most likely intended. Context is critical for understanding how words function within a text, and an author is not restricted to just one meaning.11
For a concrete example that has more relevance than Rams and Sea Monsters, Gen 22:2 describes where Abraham was to take Isaac for his sacrifice:
Hebrew: Take your son, your [only] son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Mori′ah (אֶל־אֶ֖רֶץ הַמֹּרִיָּ֑ה)
Septuagint (LXX, Greek): And (God) said, “Take your son, your beloved, whom you love, Isaak, and go to the high land (τὴν γῆν τὴν ὑψηλήν)
Jub. 18.2: “Take your son, your beloved, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the high land
The meaning of Moriah in the Hebrew is debated; it is unknown what precisely was meant.12 So, we see in the Septuagint (LXX)—the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible—the translator rendered it “the high land,” which is similar to Jubilees. In the Ge‘ez translation of Genesis 22, though, it has “high mountain” (ወሑር ፡ ውስተ ፡ ደብር ፡ ላዕላይ). Although a mundane example, it illustrates the complications of translation. Moreover, Isaac’s descriptor “only” or “beloved” is also a mess because of translation, which I discuss in a later footnote in the Jubilees translation.
All this to say, Jubilees is an important work for understanding the development of Hebrew Bible stories and interpretations. The Jewish Pseudepigrapha helped shape and mold the minds of the NT writers,—directly or indirectly13—so these texts are incredibly significant for contextualizing and comprehending the New Testament.
Translation of Gen 22:1–19 (Hebrew, RSV)
I am choosing not to supply a translation of the Hebrew to keep the word count down. I have supplied a link to BibleGateway.
Translation of Gen 22:1–19 (Greek, LXX, KSV)
God Tests Abraham
|1|14 And it happened after these events15 that God tested Abraham, and he said to him, “Abraham, Abraham.” And (Abraham) said “Behold, it is I.” |2| And (God) said, “Take your son, your beloved (ἀγαπητόν),16 whom you love, Isaak, and go to the high land (τὴν γῆν τὴν ὑψηλήν),17 and carry him up for the whole burnt-offering (ὁλοκάρπωσιν)18 upon one of the mountains, whichever one I will say to you.19
Abraham’s Journey to “The Mountain”
|3| And after Abraham stood up, early in the day, he loaded up his donkey. And he took with himself two servants (παῖδας) and Isaak, his son (υἱὸν), and after chopping the wood for the whole burnt-offering, he then stood up, and he went and came to the place, which God said to him, on the third day.
|4| And when Abraham looked up with his eyes, he saw the place from afar. |5| And Abraham said to his servants, “Sit here (αὐτοῦ) with the donkey, and I and my little boy (παιδάριον)20 will go through to there and, after we worship, we will turn back to you. |6| And Abraham took the wood for the whole burnt-offering and placed it upon Isaak, his son. And he also took the fire with his hand, and the large knife, and they went, the two together.
The ‘Aqedah, the “Binding” of Isaak
|7| And Isaak said to Abraham, his father, saying, “Father.” And (Abraham) said, “What is it, child (τέκνον)?” (Isaak) said, “Behold [here is] the fire and the wood; where is the sheep (πρόβατον) for the whole burnt-offering?” |8| And Abraham said, “God will see for himself a sheep for the whole burnt-offering, child (τέκνον).”
And after they went, the two of them together, |9| they came to the place, which God said to him. And Abraham built there the altar and placed the wood, and after he bound Isaak his son’s feet (συμποδίσας Ἰσαὰκ τὸν υἱὸν), he placed him upon the altar, on the wood. |10| And Abraham stretched out his hand to take the large knife to slaughter (σφάξαι)21 his son. |11| And a Messenger/Angel (ἄγγελος κυρίου) of the Lord called out from heaven and said to him, “Abraham, Abraham.” And (Abraham) said, “Behold, it is I.” |12| And (the Messenger/Angel) said, “Do not cast your hand against your little boy (παιδάριον), and do nothing to him. For now I know that you fear God, and you spared not your son, your beloved, on account of me.
|13| And when Abraham looked up with his eyes, behold, [there was] one ram (κριὸς) entangled22 by his horns in a Sabek tree. And Abraham went and took the ram and carried it up for the whole burnt-offering instead of Isaak, his son. |14| And Abraham called the name of that place “The Lord Saw (εἶδεν),” so that they would say today, “On the mountain, the Lord Appeared23 (ὤφθη).”
The Messenger/Angel of the Lord (and God?) Speaks from Heaven a Second Time—The Promise
|15| And the Messenger/Angel of the Lord called Abraham a second (time) from heaven, saying, |16| “By myself I swore, says the Lord, because you kept your word24 and spared not your son, your beloved, on account of me, |17| truly, I will bless you copiously,25 and I will increase your seed abundantly26 as the stars of the sky and as the sand on the shore of the sea, and your seed will inherit the cities of your enemies. |18| And all the nations of the earth will be blessed by your seed because you heeded my voice.
Abraham’s Return
|19| And Abraham turned back to his servants (παῖδας), and after they stood up, they went together to the Well of the Oath, and Abraham dwelled at the Well of the Oath.
Translation of Jubilees 17:5–18:19
Mastema Consults with the Lord about Abraham (17:5–17:18)
|17.15|27 During the seventh week, in the first year in the first month—in this Jubilee—on the twelfth of this month, there were voices in heaven concerning Abraham. (They were saying) that he was faithful in everything, which he was told (to do),28 and (that) he loved God, and (that) in every tribulation he was faithful.
|17.16|29 So Prince Mastema arose and said30 before the Lord, “Behold, Abraham loves Isaac, his son, and he finds (Isaac) more pleasing31 than all others. Tell him to offer (Isaac) as a sacrifice upon an altar; then you will see if he will perform this command, and you will know if he is faithful in everything through which you test him.”
|17.17| God knew32 that Abraham was faithful in every tribulation, which he had told him because he had tested33 him with34 his land and with the famine, and he had tested him with the riches of kings. And (God) had tested him another time with his wife, when she was abducted,35 and with circumcision, and he had tested him with Ishmael and with Hagar, his servant girl, when he sent them away.
|17.18| In everything in which (God) had tested him, (Abraham) was found (to be) faithful, and he himself was not indignant,36 nor was he slow to act, for (he was) faithful and one who loved God.
God Tests Abraham (18:1–2)
|18.1| And God said to him, “Abraham! Abraham!” And he replied, “Behold, it is I.”37
|18.2| And he said to him, “Take your son, your beloved,38 whom you love—Isaac—and go to the high land,39 and offer (him as a sacrifice)40 upon one of the mountains, which I will show you.”
The ‘Aqedah Retold—Abraham Acts on God’s Command (18:3–13)
|18.3| And (Abraham) arose at daybreak, and he loaded his donkey. He took two servants with him and his son Isaac. He split the wood for the sacrifice, and he came to the place41 on the third day. He saw the place from afar.
|18.4| And (Abraham) arrived at a cistern of water, and he ordered his servants, “Remain here with the donkey, and both I and the boy will go, and after we have worshiped, we will return to you.”
|18.5| (Abraham) took the wood for the sacrifice and placed42 it upon Isaac, his son’s shoulders, and he took in his hands fire and a dagger. The two of them went together up to that place.
|18.6| And Isaac said to his father, “Father.” And he said, “Behold, it is I,43 my son.” And he said, “Behold, (we have) the fire, the knife, and the wood, but where is the sheep, which is for sacrifice, father?”
|18.7| And he said, “God will see for himself a sheep for the sacrifice, my son.” And they44 approached near45 the place, which46 is the mountain of God,
|18.8| And (Abraham) built an altar and he placed the wood upon the altar. And he bound Isaac, his son, and placed him upon the wood, which was on the altar. And (Abraham) stretched out his hands in order to take the dagger so that he might sacrifice47 Isaac, his son.
|18.9| And I48 stood before him and Prince Mastema, and God said, “Tell him not to let his hand(s) go down against the boy nor do anything against him because I know that he is one who fears God.”
|18:10|49 And I called to him from heaven and I said to him, “Abraham, Abraham!” And he was terrified and said, “Behold, it is I.”
|18:11|50 And I said to him, “Lay not your hands upon the boy nor do anything to him because now I know that you are one who fears God and (because) you did not carry your first born51 son away from me.”
|18:12|52 And Prince Mastema was ashamed. Then Abraham raised his eyes and {behold} he saw a {certain} ram caught by its horns.53 And Abraham went and took the ram, and he offered it as a sacrifice in place of his son.”
|18:13|54 And Abraham called that place, “God Saw,” so that it might be said55 “God saw.”56 It is Mount Zion.57
God (and/or others?) Speaks from Heaven a Second Time—The Promise (18:14–16)
|18:14|58 And God called out from heaven a second time to Abraham by his name,59 just as we had appeared60 so that we might speak61 to him in the name of the God.
|18:15|62 And God (?) said, “By myself I swear, says God: Because you performed this command and (because) you did not carry your first born son away from me, the one whom you love. Indeed, I will certainly63 bless you, and I will certainly multiply your seed like the stars of the heaven and like the sand, which (lies on) the shore of the sea. Your seed will inherit the cities of their enemies.
|18:16|64 All the nations of the earth will be blessed by your seed because you obeyed my command. I have made known to all that you are faithful to me in everything, which I have told you (to do). Go in peace.”
Abraham’s Return & the Author’s Explanation of the Jubilee (18:17–19)
|18:17|65 And Abraham went to his servants, and they rose up and went to Beersheba together. And Abraham dwelt at the Well of the Oath.
|18:18|66 And he celebrated (habitually) this festival every year for seven days with rejoicing, and he called it “the Festival of God” according to the seven days during which he went and returned in peace.
|18:19|67 Thus it is ordained and written upon the heavenly tablets concerning Israel and his seed: Celebrate68 this festival for seven days with festive rejoicing.
I hope you enjoyed reading this retelling of Isaac’s near sacrifice. For more translations from the LXX, NT, and the Jewish Pseudapigrapha, hit that subscribe button. My next translation from the Pseudepigrapha will be Ezekiel the Tragedian’s Exagōgē, which is currently in a rough draft state. I have finished translating the tragedy,—the story is based on Moses’s life and the Exodus—but it might be a minute before it is finalized.
If you want to read more awesome content about the New Testament and its world, would you kindly subscribe?
It runs nearly parallel to the Second Temple Period, i.e., the reconstruction of the Temple (516 BC) to the Second Temple’s Destruction (AD 70).
This is a general date range for the Pseudepigrapha. Some works are believed to be before, e.g., Ahiqar (7–6c. BC), or after, e.g., Vision of Ezra (4–7c. AD).
There are exceptions, e.g., the Ethiopian Orthodox Church recognizes Jubilees, the Greek Orthodox 1 Enoch.
James Charlesworth’s (ed.) two volume set is the standard publication and the most cost efficient at around $55, but not all the translations are the most readable. If one were to buy individual translations, it would hit your wallet hard fairly quickly; for instance, VanderKam’s 2020 translation of Jubilees is about $20.
For a fuller discussion, consult O. Wintermute, “Jubilees” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1985), 43–44.
There are Hebrew fragments preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q225 frg. 2), and there may be a connection with the Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen). At the very least, they share traditions.
We would not need Constitutional lawyers if it were a simple matter. All documents over time will lose their initial context and apparent meaning. This phenomenon can happen within a decade, so imagine the difficulty of dissecting a document and determining authorial desires when you are 200 or 600 years removed.
J. Kugel, “The Beginnings of Biblical Interpretation,” in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism, ed. M. Henze (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 11.
Grammatical differences as well as lexical can lead to problems for a translator. Translation is in many ways an art. How closely should I stick to the original language, e.g., syntax and grammar? How much finesse is acceptable for reaching the target language’s audience? There is a delicate balance between proper representation of the text and accessibility for the reader. Anyone who claims a “literal” translation is, in part, lying to you. There is always bending in translations.
This is, obviously, an over simplistic assessment of lexicography.
Jon Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son (New Haven: Yale, 1993) 174 states, “As we have had occasion to observe, there is an opinion among scholars that ‘the land of Moriah’ in Gen 22:2 is not original to the narrative and the aqedah but was interpolated in Second Temple times in an effort to associate Abraham’s altar with David and Solomon’s foundation of the great shrine atop Zion, the Temple Mount here named Moriah. Whether or not this be so, we must see in the name ‘Moriah’ an effort to endow Abraham’s great act of obedience and faith with ongoing significance...”
Josephus reports that it is upon this mountain that the Temple was built: “After he left his associates in the plane, he was with his only (μόνου) son, [and] they came to the mountain upon which David the king later built the Temple (ἱερόν)” (Ant. 1.13.2) (KSV).
This is not to imply that the NT authors all read from the Pseudepigrapha. At best, we can show trends or veins of tradition in which these authors fall. Unless there is a direct quotation or a clear allusion, it is difficult for us to determine what exactly was read by the early Christians. Be that as it may, we can see parallels between these documents, which at the very least shows congruence of thought.
The Greek text is from J. Wevers, ed., Genesis (vol. I; Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974).
Gk, ῥήματα, “words.” LSJ A. “that which is said or spoken, word, saying.” Lit., “And it happened after these things which have been said,” i.e., after the telling of the previous story/narrative. A similar phrase occurs at 22:20 (Ἐγένετο δὲ μετὰ τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα); it is a transitional phrase, attempting to express the Hebrew וַיְהִ֗י אַחַר֙ הַדְּבָרִ֣ים הָאֵ֔לֶּה.
Heb. יְחִֽידְךָ֤, “only”; contra RSV, “beloved.” I have a fuller discussion of why this should not be rendered “beloved” in Hebrew below; see Jub. 18.2.
Heb. אֶל־אֶ֖רֶץ הַמֹּרִיָּ֑ה, “the land of Moriah”
Heb. לְעֹלָ֔ה, “whole burnt-offering.”
The relative clause with the subjunctive + ἄν is meant to convey whichever one at that time, whenever you arrive. The grammar emphasizes the indefiniteness; God will reveal to Abraham once they are there.
LSJ A. “little boy.”
LSJ A. II. “esp. slaughter victims for sacrifice”; A.II.2. “generally, slay, kill, of human victims, as Iphigeneia, Menoeceus”; A.II.3. “of any slaughter by knife or sword.”
Κατέχω has a wide range of meanings. “Held fast” is more literal, probably, but that sounds strange in English since a bush/tree/shrubbery cannot hold on to something. “Entangled” seems appropriate for the context.
The play on words—morphology—is lost in English because the words “see” and “appear” do not share a root, nor do they look identical. In Hebrew, the word “to see,” ראה, appears twice in the verse. The first time is a Qal imperfect, “saw” (יִרְאֶ֑ה) the second is a Nif’al imperfect, “appear” (יֵרָאֶֽה)—the only difference is the pointing (vowels).
Lit, “Because you did this word...”
Lit, “...truly, blessing you, I will bless you...”
Lit, “...increasing your seed, I will increase your seed...”
Greek (17:15): τὸν ἰσαὰκ ἐτῶν κε’ φησὶν εἶναι ὅτε πρὸς θυσίαν ἀνήχθη.
Reflexive Passive, 3rd person singular with 3ms. suffix. Literally, “which he was told him.” The idea is that Abraham was faithful in everything that God commanded him to do.
Greek (17:16): Μαστιφὰμ ὁ ἄρχων τῶν δαιμονίων, ὥς φησιν ἡ λεπτὴ Γένεσις, προσελθὼν τῷ θεῷ εἶπεν, εἰ ἀγαπᾷ σε Ἀβραάμ, θυσάτω σοι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ. The Greek that is preserved varies quite a bit from the Ge‘ez, but the sense remains relatively congruous.
Imperfect of behla.
Imperfect Causative-Reflexive with 3ms. suffix.
Alt. “was aware,” so Wintermute & VanderKam.
Causative, 1cs. with 3ms. suffix—I am following VanderKam; this definition is not in Leslau, Comparative, 340. The standard definitions are “advise, recommend, devise, plot, conspire,” and mĕkr can mean “judgment, plot.” The cognate evidence includes: Heb. מכר “to betray, sell off,” *מכר mak(a)ra “to plan, counsel” (HALOT). Leslau lists Ar. makara “deceive,” makr “craftiness, cunning”; Akk. makru “counsel.” Regardless of the parallels’ imprecision, it is not a stretch to see that the text implies a testing.
I am following Wintermute over VanderKam; “through” and “with” have the same general meaning, but I felt that “with” captured the instrumental sense a bit better in English. Truthfully, there is no significant difference other than the translator’s aesthetics.
Imperfect reflexive-passive 3fs. (Leslau, Comparative, 220). Also, “Carried away by force,” more akin to Wintermute and VanderKam. This is a bit wordy, so I opt for the more condensed reading. The sense is that she was “stolen” from Abraham (he was “robbed”).
I chose to diverge from Wintermute and VanderKam’s choice of “impatient.” I believe this captures the sense of the passages more accurately than just mere impatience with a situation.
Contra VanderKam, “Yes?” and Wintermute, “Here I am.” I am basing my translation on Gen 22:1 (LXX), ᾿Ιδοὺ ἐγώ and Gen 22:1 (MT), הִנֵּֽנִי , which both have this notion. The Peshitta also has: ܗܐ ܐܢܐ (“Behold, It is I”).The Vulgate differs slightly: adsum (simply, “It is I.” One might have expected ecce ego for a more direct parallel; see 18:10 [Latin] for such an instance). This can also be seen in the Ge‘ez translation of Gen 22:1, which mimics the Hebrew, Greek, and Syriac: ወኮነ ፡ እምድኅረ ፡ ዝንቱ ፡ መዋዕል ፡ አመከሮ ፡ እግዚአብሔር ፡ ለአብርሃም ፡ ወይቤሉ ፡ አብርሃም ፡ አብርሃም ፡ ወይቤ ፡ ነየ ፡ አነ ። See Leslau, Comparative, 380: “*na- ነ- with suffix pronouns serves to emphasize the pronominal element rendered by ‘behold!, as for.’” Also, note the use of አመከሮ, which was translated as “had tested him” above when Mastemah was conversing with God.
I differ from VanderKam who states, “your dear one.” Jubilees more nearly resembles LXXGen 22:2 (τὸν ἀγαπητόν; OLI has amantissimum) than MT Sam Syriac OLK (יחידך). The original Hebrew here was probably ידידך (so Charles, 1895, p. 63, n. 12).” I chose “beloved” in order to show the difference from Gen 22—Greek: ἀγαπητός (BDAG: 1. only, only beloved. 2. dear, beloved, prized, valued. LSJ: A. that wherewith one must be content… hence of only children); Hebrew: יחיד (HALOT: Ug. yḥd lonely; OSA: wḥd, Arb. waḥīd; Akk. [w]ēdu one, only. 1. Only; the only son Gn 22:2, 12, 16). These two connote the sense of an “only” child; יחיד related to אחד which is represented in the cognate languages. Syriac: ܠܐܝܚܝܕܟ (Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon, 571: ܠܐܝܚܝܕܟ adj., n. 1. n.m. lone one, unique one; 2. solitary); Latin: unigenitus (Lewis & Short: “only-begotten, only.”).
The Greek is also complicated due to textual variants. μονογενῆ, τὸν μοναχόν, μόνον σου are all attested, so there is some confusion with how to translate יחיד originally and in the recensions. There must be some lexical fluidity between these two words if they are both appearing. Hatch and Redpath record the following,
דור > ἀγαπητός: Isa 5:1, 26:17; ידיד > ἀγαπητός: Ps. 44 (45), 59 (60):5, 67 (68):12, 84 (84):1, 107 (108):6, 126 (127):2; יחיד > ἀγαπητός: Gen 22:2, 12, 16; Judges 11:34; Amos 8:10, Zach 12:10, Jer 6:26; יקיר > ἀγαπητός Jer 38 (31):20; אהב (pi.) > ἀγαπητός: Zach 13:6; Other instances of ἀγαπητός: Baruch 4:16; Da. LXX. Su. 63 [Aq. Is 41:8, Jer 12:7; Sm. II Kings 12:25, Ps 44 (45):1, 67 (68):13, Ca. 1:13, 2:3, 8, 7:9 (10), Isa 5:1, Jer 12:7; Quint. Ca. 2:2; Al. Ca. 7:6 (7)]
יחיד > μονογενής: Ps 21 (22): 20, 24 (25):16, 34 (35):17; רק יחיד > μονογενής: Judges 11:34; Other instances of μονογενής: Tob 3:15, 6:10 A. [B S om.], 14 S. [A B μόνος], Wis 7:22, Baruch 4:16 A. [B. S. μόνην] [Aq. Gen 22:2, Ps 67 (68):7, Prov 4:3, Jer 6:26; Sm. Ge 22:12, Prov 4:3, Jer 6:26; Th. Prov 4.3].
From this one can see the recensions differ at times, but Judges 11:34 has both terms where only יחיד is present. This may indicate the semantic similarities between the two Greek terms, but more analysis is needed in Jewish and Classical Greek to say for certain.
Ge‘ez: ዘታፈቀር (Leslau, Comparative, 164 “love, long for, cherish.”); Coptic: ⲙⲙⲉⲛⲣⲓⲧ (Crum, A Coptic Dictionary, 156–57 lists “love” as the primary meaning and links ⲙⲉ [the root] with ἀγαπη- related words. Specifically for ⲙⲉⲣⲓⲧ, “beloved” is listed for Gen 22:2). These words reflect the idea of love; deceptively, the classical understanding of the Greek term does not signify love in the same manner as these words. Although there is a lexical relation in the Greek, the connotation is more similar to that of יחיד. Therefore, my translation above attempts to reflect this difference.
Note, the Latin is akin to John 3:16, sic enim dilexit Deus mundum ut Filium suum unigenitum daret, which is more similar to the Greek: Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν. This could be Jerome making the connection more explicit than what is present in the Greek. It could also be that Jerome understood יחיד as “only-begotten” and not beloved, so the connection with John is coincidental. It is impossible to know from the translation alone if Jerome made the association.
This is an odd construction based on the Hebrew: ולך לך אל–ארץ המריה . Though not surprising when considering how it was translated:
Greek: πορεύθητι εἰς τὴν γῆν τὴν ὑψηλὴν
Latin: et vade in terram Visionis
Syriac:ܘܙܠ ܠܟ ܠܐܪܥܐ ܕܐܡܘܪ̈ܝܐ
Ge‘ez: ወሑር ፡ ውስተ ፡ ደብር ፡ ላዕላይ
Coptic: ⲉϫⲉⲛ ⲡⲓⲕⲁϩⲓ ⲉⲧϭⲟⲥⲓ
The Syriac changes the Hebrew to “the Amorites.” The Greek is akin to Jub. 18:2 with “high land”; it is interesting that Gen 22:2 (Ge‘ez) has “high mountain.” Josephus has τὸ Μώριον ὄρος (Ant. 1:13, 1f.). The place where this near-sacrifice occurred was also referenced as “place” in other sources, but this will be discussed later.
Causative: “To sacrifice”; see Leslau, Comparative, 70.
This becomes an important word for referencing the Temple and Moriah. Gen 22:3 reads,
Heb: וילך אל–המקום
Greek: ἦλθεν ἐπὶ τὸν τόπον
Syriac: ܘܩܡ †ܐܙܠ ܠܐܬܪܐ ܕܐܡ̣ܪ ܠܗ ܐܠܗܐ
Latin: abiit ad locum
Ge‘ez: ወበጽሐ ፡ በጊዜሃ ፡ ውስተ ፡ ውእቱ ፡ መካን ፡ ኀበ ፡ ይቤሎ ፡ እግዚአብሔር ፡ በሣልስት ፡ ዕለት ።
Vs. 4 is omitted from the Ge‘ez translation; there seems to be an influence from Jubilees.
Cp. 2 Chron 3:1 (LXX), which reads, ἐν Ιερουσαλημ ἐν ὄρει τοῦ Αμορια... ἐν τῷ τόπῳ, ᾧ ἡτοίμασεν Δαυιδ ἐν ἅλῳ Ορνα τοῦ Ιεβουσαίου.
τόπος is used in other literature to connote the Temple, a place of worship, or the location where Isaac was nearly sacrificed (Gen 22 [LXX]); peruse, Jub. 18:13 (Greek); Josephus, Ant. 14, 259; Philo, Abr. 172. Isa 5:1 (LXX) (cf. 4Q500), Deut 16:5–7 (LXX), 2 Chron 3:1 (LXX) mention τόπος as the Temple/Jerusalem. Lastly, see Melito of Sardis, Fragment 11.
The causative form means “to place on the shoulders.” Leslau, Comparative, 496.
For strict fidelity to how this construction was translated previously (18:1). Alternatively, “Here I am, my son.”
Singular verb, but the sense must be plural since it is both Abraham and Isaac. See VanderKam's translation.
I held closer to the syntax present in the Ge‘ez than VanderKam. Leslau, Comparative, 255 has “near” for ኅበ.
VanderKam and Wintermute treat the za as a genitive marker, but I am choosing to take it as a relative.
This is a 3ms subjunctive with a 3ms object suffix.
The switch to the first person is the Angel of Presence.
Latin (18:10): Et conturbatus est et dixit: ecce ego.
Latin (18:11): Et dixi ad eum: noli inicere manum tuam super puerum et non facias ei quidquam quo nunc manifestaui quia times deum tuum et non pepercisti filio tuo primogenito a me.
Note Ge‘ez bakwira; Heb. בכר. Latin primogenito. Vanderkam writes, “The biblical versions differ: MT Sam Syriac Gen 22:12 have יחידך, while LXX OL EthGen reflect ידידך.
Latin (18:12): Et confusus est princeps mastima. Et eleuans abraham oculos suos uidit et ecce aries unus tenebatur cornibus suis. Et abiit abraham et accepit arietem et obtulit eum pro isac filio suo.
Following Wintermute, who follows Charles' rendition of the text. The Ge‘ez is confusing here. Therefore, we will follow Charles’ text based upon the Latin, which reads: et ecce aries unus tenebatur cornibus suis. VanderKam claims the phrase “it was coming with its horns” is original because it falls where it should. He claims, “LXX OL EthGen 22:13 offer duplicate renderings in the context: they have the ram’s horns caught in a bush and a transcription of the Hebrew word for «thicket» (סבך). It seems that Jubilees, too, once had a duplicate rendering—not of סבך, but of the word for «held» or «caught» which in LXX is κατεχόμενος. The translator of Jubilees may have rendered it (=እኁዝ) and added to his text an alternate reading of the Greek… thus producing the present, illogical text. The absence of this expression from Latin is consistent with the notion of alternate readings.” VanderKam's argument is logical, but I see no reason to translate a clear corruption to the text, so I prefer to leave out the scribal error.
Latin (18:13): Et uocauit abraham nomen loci illius dominus uidit ut dicatur in monte dominus uisus est: hic est mons sion.
This could either be a Reflexive-Passive imperfect or subjunctive—I am rendering it as a subjunctive because of the kama; see Leslau, Comparative, 285, who states that intention of a person may be expressed with kama plus the subjunctive.
This is a strange construction when one considers the MT and translation history of the text (22:14). Consider,
Heb: ׃ וַיִּקְרָ֧א אַבְרָהָ֛ם שֵֽׁם–הַמָּק֥וֹם הַה֖וּא יְהוָ֣ה׀ יִרְאֶ֑ה אֲשֶׁר֙ יֵאָמֵ֣ר הַיּ֔וֹם בְּהַ֥ר יְהוָ֖ה יֵרָאֶֽה
Greek: καὶ ἐκάλεσεν Αβρααμ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ τόπου ἐκείνου Κύριος εἶδεν, ἵνα εἴπωσιν σήμερον ᾿Εν τῷ ὄρει κύριος ὤφθη.
Syriac: ܘܩ̣ܪܐ ܐܒܪܗܡ ܫܡܗ ܕܐܬܪܐ ܗ̇ܘ ܡܪܝܐ ܢܚܙܐ. ܕܐܬܐܡܪ ܝܘܡܢܐ ܒܛܘܪܐ ܗܢܐ ܡܪܝܐ ܢܚܙܐ.
Latin: appellavitque nomen loci illius Dominus videt unde usque hodie dicitur in monte Dominus videbit.
Ge‘ez: ወሰመዮ ፡ አብርሃም ፡ ለውእቱ ፡ መካን ፡ ርእየ ፡ እግዚአብሔር ፡ ከመ ፡ ይበሉ ፡ ዮም ፡ ውስተ ፡ ደብረ ፡ እግዚአብሔር ፡ ርእየ ።
Even the Ge‘ez does not quite reflect what Jubilees is stating. It is strange that 18:13 has ርእየ for the naming and the justification.
Greek (18:13): εἰς ἐκεῖνον δὲ τὸν τόπον λέγει τὸν ἀβραὰμ οἰκοδομῆσαι ἔνθα δαβὶδ ὕστερον ἱδρύσατο τὸ ἱερόν. Also see Josephus (Ant. 1.13.2) “After he left his associates in the plane, he was with his only (μόνου) son, [and] they came to the mountain (ὄρος) upon which David the king later built the Temple (ἱερόν).”
Latin (18:14): Et uocauit abraham nomine suo secundo de caelo quia +fuimus+ ut loquamur illi nomine domini.
I changed the syntax from the Ge‘ez for the sake of clarity and aesthetics. Lit. “And God called out to Abraham by his name a second time from heaven...”
This is a causative, reflective-passive verb.
Rather than a causative form as previously, this is a subjunctive, reflective-passive verb.
Latin (18:15): Et dixit per me ipsum iuraui dicit dominus propter quod fecisti sermonem istum et non pepercisti filio tuo unigenito propter me quem dilexisti quoniam benedicens benedicam te et multiplicans multiplicabo semen tuum stellas caeli et sicut harena quae est circa litora maris. Et hereditauit semen tuum ciuitates aduersariorum eius.
In order to capture the emphasis, I supplied the “certainly.”
Latin (18:16): Et benedicentur in semine tuo omnes gentes terrae propter quod obaudisti uoci meae et ego manifestaui omnibus quoniam fidelis es mihi in omnibus quae dixi tibi ambulare in pace.
Latin (18:17): Et abiit abraham ad pueros suos et exurgentes abierunt in bersabe et habitabit abraham secus puteum iurationis.
Latin (18:18): Et faciebat diem festum ter per singulos annos. Nam et istos septem dies in laetitia faciebat et uocauit eum in diem festum domini secundum septem dies quibus abiit et reuersus est.
Latin (18:19): Et erat decretum et scriptum in tabulis caeli super istrahel et super semen eius ut faciant diem festum septem diebus in laetitia gaudentes.
Lit. “To celebrate.” This is an infinitive, though it makes sense to render it as an imperative. There is some precedent to understand an infinitive as an imperative. The Hebrew infinitive absolute can follow a conjugated verb in order to intensify the meaning, which includes imperatives. Although not directly parallel, the context suggests this should be taken as an imperative.