Origin of ‘Rose of Sharon’:
An Analysis of Various Translations
Having a Bearing on
The Authorized Version Text
A Dissertation Presented to
International Communication Graduate School
Aichi University
In Partial Fulfillment of
t h e R e q u i r e me n t s f o r t h e D e g r e e o f M a s t e r o f A r t s
i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o m mu n i c a t i o n
Supervised by
P r o f e s s o r M i c h i h i s a Ts u k a mo t o
by
MIZOTA Satoshi
January 2008
i
Ta b l e o f C o n t e n t s
Introduction ･･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････ 1
I . R e - E x a m i n a t i o n o f Wo r d S e l e c t i o n i n t h e A u t h o r i z e d Ve r s i o n ･ ･ 7
1 . 1 . T h e A u t h o r i z e d Ve r s i o n o f t h e B i b l e a n d ‘ C a n t i c l e s ’
1 . 2 . T h e F o r m a t i o n o f t h e A . V. a n d t h e R u l e s
1 . 3 . T h e R e f e r e n c e a n d C h o i c e o f Wo r d s b y t h e A . V . ’s Tr a n s l a t o r s
1 . 4 . D i s c r e p a n c i e s i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e A . V. a n d S m i t h ’s D i c t i o n a r y
1.5. Etymological Re-examination of the word ‘Rose’ and ‘Lily’ in Hebrew
II. Martin Luther and Johannes Reuchlin ････････････････････････ 17
2 . 1 . L u t h e r ’s I n v e r t e d C h o i c e o f Tr a n s l a t e d Wo r d s
2 . 2 . T h e A n a l y s i s o f Tr a n s l a t e d Wo r d s I n v e r t e d b y L u t h e r
2.3. Luther and Medieval Interpretations
2.4. Reuchlin and Luther
2 . 5 . R e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n R e u c h l i n ’s G u t a c h t e n a n d L u t h e r ’s t r a n s l a t i o n
2 . 6 . T h e P o s s i b i l i t y o f R e u c h l i n ’s R e f e r e n c e s
I I I . T h e Ta r g u m C a n t i c l e s ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ 2 9
3 . 1 . T h e Wo r d ‘ Wa r d a ’ i n t h e Ta rg u m C a n t i c l e s 2 : 2
3.2. Et ymological Relationship Between ‘warda’ and ‘rosa’
3 . 3 . T h e A u t h o r ’s i n t e n t i o n
3 . 4 . R e l a t i o n s h i p o f Ta r g u m w i t h A q u i l a ’s v e r s i o n a m o n g J e w s
I V. A q u i l a ’s G r e e k Ve r s i o n a n d St . J e r o m e ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ ･ 3 5
4 . 1 . A q u i l a ’s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f h a b a t s e l e t h w i t h k a l u / k w s i j
4 . 2 . E t y m o l o g i c a l M e a n i n g o f k a l u / k w s i j a n d A q u i l a ’s I n t e n t i o n
ii
4 . 3 . S t . J e r o m e ’s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f k a l u / k w s i j w i t h r o s a
4 . 4 . S a i n t J e r o m e ’s A t t i t u d e t o A q u i l a ’s t r a n s l a t e d w o r d
V. T h e R e - E x a m i n a t i o n o f k a / l u c i n t h e L i n a g e o f G r e e k L e x i c o n s ･ ･ ･ ･ 4 4
5.1. Existence or Non-existence of the Concept of ‘Rose’
5.2. The definition of the Latin ‘calyx’ as a loanword from Greek
5.3. P roblems of the Item ka/luc in Hes ychius’ Lexicon
5 . 4 . I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f k a / l u c w i t h r ( o / d o n i n C y r i l ’s L e x i c o n
5 . 5 . O r i g i n o f t h e l i k e n e s s b e t w e e n S t J e r o m e a n d C y r i l ’s l e x i c o n
VI. The meaning of habatseleth and The Septuagint ･･････････････ 57
6.1. The feature of the Septuagint
6.2. The Government by the Hebrew pharath in Isa. 35:1
6.3. The ‘Collocation’ Formed by the pharath and the habatsaleth
6.4. The Septuagint and the Original meaning of the habatseleth
Conclusion ････････････････････････････････････････････････････････ 65
Bibliography ･･････････････････････････････････････････････････････ 69
Mizota 1
Introduction
R e c e n t l y, a r o b u s t d i s c u s s i o n f r o m v a r i o u s s t a n d p o i n t s i s b e i n g
c o n d u c t e d i n t h e f i e l d o f ‘ Tr a n s l a t i o n S t u d i e s ’ . A t t e n t i o n i s c u r r e n t l y
focused on the cause which hinders international communications
amidst the rapid progression of internationalization.
It should be appreciated that Biblical translation supplies many
g r e a t m a t e r i a l s f o r ‘ Tr a n s l a t i o n S t u d i e s ’ . E u g e n e N i d a ( b . 1 9 1 4 ) , a
Biblicist and a structural linguist, observed very truly that the history
o f B i b l i c a l t r a n s l a t i o n i n f i n i t e l y o u t c l a s s e s a n y o t h e r s . Wi t h r e g a r d t o
the problem of translation, the Bible has a rich history where only one
common text has been translated into various languages, for various
purposes, and using multi-strata references.1
Regarding
‘translation’
as
‘interpretation’,
Roland
Barthes
(1915-1980) cannot be disregarded. In his La mort de l’auteur (1968),
he argued that readers should escape from the shackles of the
intention of the author in the original text. His thought in ‘Death of the
Author ’ is plainl y indicated in the last statement: ‘The emergence of
t h e r e a d e r s h o u l d b e i n r e t u r n f o r t h e d e a t h o f t h e a u t h o r. ’
2
B a r t h e s ’ t h e o r y t h a t r e p r o d u c i n g t h e a u t h o r ’s i n t e n t i o n i s a
virtual
impossibility
has
had
a
critical
influence
on
Biblical
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . H o w e v e r, s o m e b i b l i c a l s c h o l a r s f e e l s l i g h t l y d o u b t f u l
1
2
Nida (1971) 6-7.
Barthes 491-5.
Mizota 2
about directl y applying Barthes’ idea. For example, while partl y
a g r e e i n g w i t h B a r t h e s ’ i d e a , Ts u j i ( 2 0 0 7 ) i n s i s t s t h a t r e a d e r s s h o u l d n o t
a v o i d p r o b i n g t h e a u t h o r ’s i n t e n t i o n i n B i b l i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n b y
anal yzing
h i s t o r y,
information
and
the
such
reading
as
ecclesiastical
population.
3
From
h i s t o r y,
the
philological
perspective
of
t r a n s l a t i o n s t u d i e s , Ts u j i ’s i d e a i s v e r y i m p o r t a n t . A l t h o u g h i t i s a n
i n d i s p u t a b l e f a c t t h a t t h e a u t h o r ’s i n t e n t i o n i s d i r e c t l y u n q u e s t i o n e d i n
linguistics, the question of lexis is considerable.
H o w e v e r, t h e ‘ D e a t h ’ i s n o t v a l i d s i m p l y f o r t h e i n t e n t i o n o f t h e
‘ A u t h o r ’ . P o s s i b l y, e v e n ‘ w o r d ’ a n d ‘ l a n g u a g e ’ d i e . E s p e c i a l l y, t h e O l d
Te s t a m e n t c o n t a i n s a l a r g e n u m b e r o f o b s o l e t e w o r d s . A n d H e b r e w
itself is a dead language. Therefore it is necessary for translators to fill
the ‘blanks’ not with interpretational but with philological anal ysis in
s o m e w a y. M o r e o v e r, t h e ‘ b l a n k ’ , a s a m a t t e r o f c o u r s e , c r e a t e s a n e w
k i n d o f p r o b l e m f o r t r a n s l a t o r s . Tr a n s l a t o r s a r e f o r c e d t o f i l l t h e
‘ b l a n k s ’ w i t h u n c e r t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n s u c h a s e t y m o l o g y, a n a l o g y w i t h
context, and reference to other versions.
Nida compactly demonstrates a logical model of the translation
p r o c e s s e s i n c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h Ta b e r.
N i d a a n d Ta b e r e x p l a i n t h e i r t h e o r y a s f o l l o w s :
The first box represents the source (S), who communicates
the message (M1), which is received by an original receptor
( R 1 ) . T h e t r a n s l a t o r, w h o i s b o t h r e c e p t o r a n d s o u r c e , f i r s t
3
Ts u j i 5 5 .
Mizota 3
receives M1 as if he were an R1, and then produces in a
totall y di fferent hi stori cal -cultural contex t a n ew m ess age
M 2 , w h i c h h e h o p e s w i l l b e u n d e r s t o o d b y t h e f i n a l r e c e p t o r,
R2. . . . The critic must compare the real or presumed
comprehension of M1 by R1 with the comprehension of M2
by
the
average
receptor
R2,
as
diagrammatically
represented . . .4 (See Fig.1).
F i g . 1 . N i d a ’s M o d e l o f Tr a n s l a t i o n P r o c e s s
5
In Fig. 1, ‘S’ means ‘source’, ‘R’ means ‘receptors’, and ‘M’
means ‘message’.
T h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t p o i n t i n N i d a ’s t h e o r y i s t h a t t h e r e a r e c r i t i c s
w h o d e t e r m i n e t h e s u i t a b i l i t y o f t h e t r a n s l a t i o n . E s p e c i a l l y, i n t h e
history of Biblical translation, these critics themselves often make new
translations. The biblical translation history is a hierarchical structure
highly complicated by this relationship between a translator and a
4
Nida (1969) 22-3.
T h e Ta i s h u k a n E n c y c l o p a e d i a o f E n g l i s h L i n g u i s t i c s 8 6 5 - 7 6 . ; N i d a
(1969) 22-3.
5
Mizota 4
critic. Therefore we must research what are the translators’ estimation
and the process of word adoption. These highly complicated structures
cause various problems. Given this perspective, it is obvious that
translated texts originally come under the influence of a historical
process.
Each translating process is ‘diachronic’ as well as ‘s ynchronic’.
From a diachronic standpoint, it may be inevitable that ‘translation
s h i f t ’ o c c u r s i n e a c h p r o c e s s . Tr a n s l a t i o n s h i f t m e a n s ‘ s m a l l l i n g u i s t i c
c h a n g e s o c c u r r i n g i n t r a n s l a t i n g ’ f r o m ‘ S o u r c e Te x t ’ t o ‘ Ta r g e t Te x t ’ .
T h e m o s t i n f l u e n t i a l m o d e l o f a l l i s t h e t h e o r y o f Vi n a y a n d D a r b e l n e t
(1958/1995). They insist that there are two translation strategies:
‘direct translation’ includes three subdivisions such as ‘Borrowing’,
‘Calque’, and ‘Literal translation’. And ‘oblique translation’ includes
f o u r s u b d i v i s i o n s s u c h a s ‘ Tr a n s p o s i t i o n ’ , ‘ M o d u l a t i o n ’ , ‘ E q u i v a l e n c e ’ ,
and ‘Adaptation’.6 Their model is very useful for evaluation of each
version. Because, we can manifest the reasons why the words are either
deleted or replaced in each version by their model.
H o w e v e r, t h e r e i s a p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t r e s e a r c h e r s p r e j u d g e t e x t s
without prior investigation. Their models are merely at the end of
r e p r o d u c i n g t h e ‘ o r i g i n a l ’ m e a n i n g . We s h o u l d r e s e a r c h a p r i m a r y c a u s e
of ‘putting buttons in the wrong buttonholes’, because the variations of
each translated word originally stems from transition of the word b y
e a c h t r a n s l a t o r. I t h a s t o b e n o t e d t h a t e a c h t r a n s l a t e d w o r d h a s i n h e r e n t
o r i g i n i n v e r s i o n s o f h i s t o r i c a l r e c o r d s . We s h o u l d n o t m e r e l y c o m p a r e
6
M u n d a y 5 5 . ; Vi n a y a n d D a r b e l n e t 1 2 8 - 3 7 .
Mizota 5
these translated words, but research the strategy and reasons why each
translator adopted the words they do.
T h e r e s e a r c h i s n o t e x a c t l y t h a t s i m p l e . We a r e l i t e r a l l y f a c e d
w i t h a p r o b l e m o f ‘ D e a t h o f Tr a n s l a t o r s ’ . H o w e v e r, w e c a n d r i v e a
rational approximation from relevant literatures. Based on mutual
c o m p a r i s o n , w e s h o u l d d e p e n d o n t e x t u a l a n d c o m p a r a t i v e p h i l o l o g y.
Thus, we are compelled to debate on how to choose translated words,
a n d w h a t t h o s e t r a n s l a t o r s r e a l l y r e f e r r e d t o . T h a t i s t o s a y, w e m u s t d o
retrospective investigation on what really happened in each stage, and
in each translated word. Therefore subjects of investigation are all
texts, such as lexicons or commentaries, which are used by each
t r a n s l a t o r.
H o w e v e r, w h e n w e e v a l u a t e t h e ‘ t r a n s l a t i o n s h i f t ’ i n h i s t o r i c a l
literatures such as Biblical translations with a highly-multiplexed
structure of translation, the equivalence of word meaning among
v e r s i o n s u n d e r s t u d y s h o u l d b e a l w a y s c o n f i r m e d i n s o m e w a y. A t t i m e s
like this, we have a tendency to be content to just swallow whole the
definition of existing dictionaries. Definitions in all dictionaries are
somewhat less than perfect. For the sake of comparison among versions,
we need to comprehend translated words as ‘morphemes’ once at least.
According to Nida, morphemes mean ‘minimal meaningful units
of which the
absolutely
languages are
essential
that
we
composed’.
trace
an
7
In addition,
etymology
of
it
each
morpheme in order to define the meaning of translated words.
7
Nida (1946) 6.
is
Mizota 6
This thesis deals with the origin of the well-known phrase ‘the
rose of Sharon’ in Canticles 2:1. As noted in Chap. 1, this phrase is
o r i g i n a l l y i n T h e A u t h o r i z e d Ve r s i o n ( a b b r. A . V. ) , w h i c h i s t h e m o s t
famous version in English. The word ‘rose’ is frequently cited as an
e x a m p l e i n s u c h o b s o l e t e w o r d s i n H e b r e w o r i g i n a l t e x t . M o r e o v e r,
m o s t s c h o l a r s r e g a r d t h e t r a n s l a t e d w o r d ‘ r o s e ’ a s i r r e l e v a n t . H o w e v e r,
little attention has been given to the primary cause of ‘putting buttons
in the wrong buttonholes’ in this irrelevant ‘rose’.
The purpose of this thesis is to attempt to trace back to the origin
of the translated word ‘rose’ while referring to relevant literatures
textual-philologically
and
reevaluating
translated
words
et ymologicall y in each version. Therefore, to begin with, we compare
E n g l i s h a n d n o n - E n g l i s h v e r s i o n s r e f e r e n c e d b y t r a n s l a t o r s o f A . V. , a n d
then point to the problem of survey results (Chap. 1.). Next, we explore
potential links between the modern interpretations of pioneers such as
Luther or Reuchlin and Medieval and Ancient interpretations in Semitic
and Latin (Chap. 2 and 3.). Furthermore, we frame a hypothesis on the
origin of the translated word ‘rose’ by examining early Christian
interpretations under the influence of a Greek version and the linage of
G r e e k L e x i c o n s ( C h a p . 4 a n d 5 . ) . F i n a l l y, w e r e c o n s t r u c t t h e o r i g i n a l
meaning of Cant. 2:1 in Hebrew (Chap. 6.). In the Conclusion, we
demonstrate the pedigree of translations on the word ‘rose’ by the
hypothesis.
Mizota 7
Chapter I
R e - E x a m i n a t i o n o f Wo r d S e l e c t i o n i n t h e A u t h o r i z e d Ve r s i o n
1 . 1 . T h e A u t h o r i z e d Ve r s i o n o f t h e B i b l e a n d ‘ C a n t i c l e s ’
T h e A u t h o r i z e d Ve r s i o n o f t h e B i b l e ( a b b r. A . V. ) i s t h e v e r y
fam o us En gl i sh Bi bl e t r ansl at i on pub l i shed i n 1611 b y r o ya l d ec r ee o f
King James I (Admin. 1603-1625). It seems that the king was concerned
t o a c h i e v e o n e c o m m o n t r a n s l a t i o n o f t h e B i b l e . 8 T h e A . V. c o n s i d e r a b l y
a f f e c t e d t h e s u b s e q u e n t g r o w t h o f E n g l i s h p r o s e a n d v o c a b u l a r y,
because the st yle is simple and sophisticated. Not onl y that, the version
has influenced subsequent biblical translations all over the world.
F i g . 2 . T h e T i t l e P a g e a n d C a n t . C h a p . 2 i n t h e A . V. ( 1 6 11 ) 9
8
9
Butterworth 219.
A . V. T h e Ti t l e P a g e a n d C a n t . C h a p . 2 .
Mizota 8
Canticles (i.e. Song of Songs / Song of Solomon) denotes one
b o o k i n t h e O l d Te s t a m e n t . T h e c o n t e n t o f C a n t i c l e s i s a l o v e s o n g o f a
couple. The tradition handed down from old times has regarded the
author as the Lord's Anointed King Solomon (10th Century B.C.).
However many modern scholars question the tradition.10
T h e p h r a s e ‘ t h e r o s e o f S h a r o n ’ i n C a n t . 2 : 1 o f T h e A . V. i s
f a m i l i a r t o E n g l i s h n a t i v e s p e a k e r s . F o r e x a m p l e , t h e n a m e o f t h e h e r o ’s
s i s t e r i n J o h n S t e i n b e c k ’s c l a s s i c ‘ T h e G r a p e s o f Wr a t h ( F i r s t E d i t i o n :
1 9 3 9 ) ’ i s b a s e d o n t h i s e x p r e s s i o n o f t h e A . V. ( i . e . R o s a s h a r n ) . 1 1 T h e
original Hebrew word for ‘rose’ is habatseleth. The word habatseleth is
o b s o l e t e w o r d s i n o r i g i n a l H e b r e w. T h e r e a r e o n l y t w o s i t e s c o n t a i n i n g
t h i s w o r d i n t h e O l d Te s t a m e n t , i . e . C a n t . 2 : 1 a n d I s a . 3 5 : 1 . M o s t
modern scholars do not regard this habatseleth as being a ‘rose’.12 This
thesis tries to track back to the origin of the translated word ‘rose’ in
t h e A . V. ( S e e F i g . 2 ) .
1 . 2 . T h e F o r m a t i o n o f t h e A . V. a n d t h e R u l e s
T h e A . V. i s a c r y s t a l l i z a t i o n o f t h e w i s d o m o f t h e b i b l i c a l s c h o l a r s
a n d l i n g u i s t s o f t h e e a r l y 1 7 t h C e n t u r y. T h e f o l l o w i n g t w o r e s o u r c e s o n
t h e f o r m a t i o n o f t h e A . V. h a v e s u r v i v e d .
The first is a document left b y a physician and historian. The
document
10
11
12
shows
the
nominal
list
of
all
translators
and
their
Meek 96-7.
B e n é t 9 4 8 . s . v. ‘ r o s e o f S h a r o n ’
T h e Te m p l e D i c t i o n a r y o f t h e B i b l e 6 8 0 . s . v. ‘ R O S E ’ . ; M e e k 1 1 2 .
Mizota 9
assignments. The translators were divided into six groups, i.e. two
g r o u p s r e s p e c t i v e l y o f We s t m i n s t e r, C a m b r i d g e , a n d O x f o r d . A n d t h e
book of Canticles was one of eight books translated by the group of
Edward Livel y (c.1545-1605) in Cambridge. In addition, this document
contains a 15-point resolution (i.e. ‘The Rules to be observed in the
Tr a n s l a t i o n o f t h e B i b l e ’ ) . E s p e c i a l l y, t h e f o l l o w i n g a r t i c l e s i n t h i s r u l e
are connected with our question.
1. The ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called
the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as
t h e Tr u t h o f t h e o r i g i n a l w i l l p e r m i t .
4 . W h e n a Wo r d h a t h d i v e r s S i g n i f i c a t i o n s ; t h a t t o b e k e p t
witch hath been most commonly used by the most Ancient
Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and
the Analogy of the Faith.
14. These translations to be used when they agree better
w i t h t h e Te x t t h a n t h e B i s h o p s B i b l e . [ i . e . ] Ti n d o l l ’s [ s i c . ] .
M a t t h e w s [ s i c . ] . C o v e rd a l e ’s . W h i t c h u rc h ’s . G e n e v a . 1 3
S e c o n d l y, a m a n u s c r i p t n a m e d a s ‘ A d d . 3 4 2 1 8 ’ i n t h e B r i t i s h
L i b r a r y. W h a t i s w r i t t e n i n t h e m a n u s c r i p t i s l a r g e l y s i m i l a r t o B o l a s e ’s
Document. The particular thing in the manuscript is the date of the
m a n u s c r i p t , t h a t i s t o s a y, ‘ A n n o s e c u n d i [ s i c . ] r e g i s I a c o b i 1 6 0 4 ’ ( i . e .
13
Te r a s a w a 8 - 9 . ; A l f r e d W. P o l l a r d , ‘ B i b l i o g r a p h i c a l I n t r o d u c t i o n ’ .
A . V. 3 9 .
Mizota 10
‘In the second year of the reign of King James, 1604’).14 That means
the rule of translation and the list of translators was determined in 1604.
However Butterworth sa ys, for many reasons, the actual beginning
translation year is later than 1604.15
1 . 3 . T h e R e f e r e n c e a n d C h o i c e o f Wo r d s b y t h e A . V . ’s Tr a n s l a t o r s
Based on the forward by ‘The translators to the Readers’, i.e. the
t r a n s l a t o r s o f t h e A . V. , B u t t e r w o r t h s a i d t h a t t h e t r a n s l a t o r s r e f e r r e d t o
versions and commentaries in the following languages. ‘Hebrewe,
Greeke, Latine, S yrian, Chaldee, Spanish, French, Italian, Dutch.’ (See
Fig. 3)16
F i g . 3 . T h e Tr a n s l a t o r s t o t h e R e a d e r s i n t h e A . V. 1 7
B a s e d o n t h i s t e s t i m o n y, B . F. We s t c o t t l i s t s t h e p u b l i c a t i o n s t h a t
were thought to have been used by the translators. 18 The content
a d h e r e n t t o t h e O l d Te s t a m e n t i s t a b u l a t e d i n Ta b l e 1 , a n d t h e t e x t s o f
14
A l f r e d W. P o l l a r d , ‘ B i b l i o g r a p h i c a l I n t r o d u c t i o n ’ . A . V. 3 5 . N o w t h e
Manuscript ‘Add.34218’ is reserved in the British Library as the
following title: [BIBLES. BIBLIOGRAPHY. Order for translation of the
Bible, with translators' names 1604.]
15
Butterworth 222.
16
Butterworth. p.228-9.
17
A . V. ‘ T h e Tr a n s l a t o r s t o t h e R e a d e r s ’
18
We s t c o t t 2 5 5 - 7 .
Mizota 11
e a c h v e r s i o n i n C a n t . 2 : 1 a r e t a b u l a t e d i n Ta b l e 2 . S o m e v e r s i o n s c o u l d
not be referred to because no library in Japan has them.
A c l o s e l o o k a t Ta b l e 1 a n d 2 w i l l r e v e a l t h e f o l l o w i n g .
(1) It turns out that the translators used modern versions after
L u t h e r.
(2)
The translators adopted the expression of ‘the rose of
Sharon’ directly based on the last versions, i.e. Bertram, Diodati, and
Cipriano.
Table 1. Publications Related to the Old Testament Used by the Translators of the A.V.
Year
Publication
1525
Old Testament Trans.
Translator/ Editor
Martin Luther
Language
German trans. from
Originl Hebrew Text
1545
Martin Luther
Rev.ed.
1528
Old Testament Trans.
Sanctes Pagninus
Latin trans. from
Originl Hebrew Text
1569
Old Testament Trans.
Cassiodoro de Reyna
Spanish trans. from
Originl Hebrew Text
1602
Cipriano deValera
Rev.ed.
1572
Antwerp Polyglot Bible
Arias Montanus
Rev. ed. of Pagninus;
Heb.; LXX; Vulgate;
Aramaic; Syriac
1579
Old Testament Trans.
John I. Tremellius
Latin trans. from
Syriac version.
1587-8
Old Testament Trans.
Corneille B. Bertram
French trans. from
Originl Hebrew Text
1607
Old Testament Trans.
Giovanni Diodati
Italian trans. from
Originl Hebrew Text
Mizota 12
Table 2: The Passages of the Versions used by the Translators of the A.V.
（BHS: 1977/Heb.）
（LXX /Gk.）
’ani habatseleth hasharon,
shoshanah ha’amaqim:
)Egw¥ a)¥nqoj tou= pedi/ou, kri/non tw=n koila/dwn.()(
（The Vulgate /Lat.）
ego flos campi et lilium convalium.
（Luther: 1524 /Ger.）
Jch byn eyne blume zu Saron, und eyn rose im tal.
（Pagninus: 1528 /Lat.）
Ego rosa campi, & lilium cōvallium.
（Tyndale. Sup.: 1534 /Eng.） I am the floure of the felde, and lylyes of the valeyes.
（Coverdale: 1535 / Eng.）
I am the floure of the felde, and lylie of the valleys.
（The Great Bible: 1539/ Eng.）I am the lylie of the felde, and rose ye valleyes.
（Luther: 1545 / Ger.）
Jch bin ein Blumen zu Saron, und ein Rose im tal.
（Matthew: 1549 / Eng.）
I am the floure of the felde, and Lylye of the valleys.
（Geneva: 1560 / Eng.）
I am the rose of the field, & the lilie of the valleys.
（Bishop's Bible: 1568/ Eng.） I am the rose of the fielde, and lillie of the valleys.
（Cassiodoro: 1569/ Sp.）
Yo soy el Lirio del campo*, y la rosa de los valles.
* (de Sarón)
（Antwerp Polyglot: 1572）
( Not Found in Japanese Libraries. )
（Bertram: 1587-8/ Fr.）
（Cipriano: 1602 / Sp.）
Ie svis la rose de Sçaron, & le muguet des valees.
Yo soy la rosa de Sarón, y el lirio de los valles
（Diodati: 1607 /Ita.）
Io son la rosa di Saron, il giglio delle valli.
（A.V.: 1611/ Eng.）
I am the rose of Sharon, and the lillie of the valleys.
(3) The translators obey Bishops’ Bible with ‘rose’ in Cant 2:1a.
T h e y w e n t b y ‘ T h e R u l e s t o b e o b s e r v e d i n t h e Tr a n s l a t i o n o f t h e
Bible’.
(4) In the ancient versions and the early English versions,
translators regarded original Hebrew habatseleth as words including
a)¥nqoj and ‘flos’ which merely mean ‘flower ’. However the Authorized
Ve r s i o n ’s t r a n s l a t o r s r e j e c t e d t r a d i t i o n a l t r a n s l a t e d w o r d t h a t m e r e l y
means ‘flower ’, and make allowances for Pagninus’ Latin version in
1528.
Mizota 13
( 5 ) H o w e v e r, a l t h o u g h t h e t r a n s l a t o r s r e g a r d h a b a t s e l e t h a s r o s e ,
t h e y r e j e c t L u t h e r ’s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h a t s h o s h a n a h w a s r e g a r d e d a s r o s e .
1 . 4 . D i s c r e p a n c i e s i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e A . V. a n d S m i t h ’ s D i c t i o n a r y
D i s c r e p a n c i e s i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n b e t w e e n t h e A . V. ’s w o r d s a n d t h e
original Hebrew words have been acknowledged as a problem for a long
t i m e . We c a n b e r i g h t i n t h i n k i n g t h a t o n e m o n u m e n t o n t h i s p r o b l e m i s
A D i c t i o n a r y o f t h e B i b l e e d i t e d b y S i r Wi l l i a m S m i t h ( 1 8 1 3 - 1 8 9 3 ) .
Smith’s A Dictionary of the Bible does not also regard habatseleth as
being a rose (See Fig. 4.).
F i g. 4. The Item of ‘RO SE’ i n Smi th’s Di cti onary (186 3) 19
Whereas Smith’s dictionary compares translated words of many
versions, it is nothing more than a mere comparison with these versions
and definitions of the original Hebrew word. Subsequent research is
loosely based on the dictionary and never interested in the process of
these translations.
19
Smith, vol.3. 1061.
Mizota 14
1.5. Etymological R e-Examination of the w ord ‘Rose’ and ‘Lily’ in Hebrew
Thus, the problem whether habatseleth or shoshanah should be
regarded as ‘rose’ lies behind this difference. It is obvious that
translated words have no positional correspondence to original Hebrew
words
in
biblical
translation
h i s t o r y.
We
must
recognize
that
assumption of the original Hebrew meaning based on translated words
is clearly misguided.
Wi l h e l m
Gesenius
(1786-1842),
a
famous
Hebraist,
once
explained that this word habatseleth is composed of two roots: hamets
(acid or acrid) and betsel (bulb). Gesenius sa ys this explanation is
f a v o r e d b y t h e e t y m o l o g y. 2 0 I n a d d i t i o n , B e n j a m i n D a v i d s o n ( d . 1 8 7 1 )
explains that the guttural h- is prefixed to betsel as in hashemannim
f r o m s h a m a n . 2 1 M o s t s c h o l a r s b r o a d l y a c c e p t t h i s ‘ b u l b ’ p l a n t t h e o r y,
and regard the habatseleth as ‘crocus’ or ‘narcissus’.22 This theory
s e e m s t o b e c o n s i d e r e d t h e m o s t r e a s o n a b l e a n d p r o p e r. I n a n y c a s e ,
there can be little doubt that the habatseleth et ymologicall y indicates
something with the meaning of ‘bulb’.
As to dissenting opinions, it may be noted that Julius Fürst
(1805-73), a German Orientalist, suggests that habatsel derives from
habats (i.e. hamats) which means ‘to have a pungent fragrance’ or ‘to
b e b r i g h t , s p l e n d i d ’ . 2 3 H o w e v e r, e v e n i f F ü r s t ’s i d e a i s t r u e , w e c a n n o t
20
21
22
23
G e s e n i u s 2 9 2 - 3 s . v. ‘ h a b a t s e l e t ’ .
D a v i d s o n 2 4 6 . s . v. ‘ h a b a t s e l e t ’ .
M e e k 11 2 .
D a v i d s o n 2 4 6 . s . v. ‘ h a b a t s e l e t ’ .
Mizota 15
regard the word habatseleth as being a ‘rose’ at all.
Meanwhile, there can be little doubt that the Hebrew shoshanah
or shoshan means the kind of ‘lil y’.
Gesenius insists that shoshanah et ymologicall y stemmed from the
word shush ‘to be white’ or ‘to be bright’.24 According to Davidson,
the shoshanah etymologically stemmed from the word shush ‘to be
white’ or ‘to be bright’ though he regards the word shush as an obsolete
r o o t . 2 5 H o w e v e r, w e s h o u l d n o t j u m p t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e w h i t e
color represents a certain kind of flower such as ‘lily’. In order to
reexamine the root from the standpoint of comparative linguistics, we
must refer to the usage of the root in the modern Arabic.
H a n s We h r ( 1 9 0 9 - 1 9 8 1 ) r e g a r d s t h e m o d e r n A r a b i c PQQQQQQQQQRSR s a u s a n
( o r s ū s a n ) a s ‘ l i l y o f t h e v a l l e y ’ i n h i s m o d e r n A r a b i c d i c t i o n a r y. 2 6
A l t h o u g h We h r i s s u s p e c t e d o f c o m p a r i n g t h e m o d e r n A r a b i c b i b l e t o
t h e A . V , w e m u s t t h i n k t h a t t h e PQQQQQQQQRSR m e a n s ‘ l i l y ’ i n m o d e r n A r a b i c
b e c a u s e w e c a n f i n d m a n y A r a b i c w e b s i t e s w h i c h r e g a r d t h e PQQQQQQQQRSR a s
kinds of ‘lil y’.
P. C . J o h n s t o n s a y s t h a t t h e A r a b i c s ū s a n h a s a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h
the Hebrew shūshan and has a possibility of a loanword from Egyptian.
A d d i t i o n a l l y, J o h n s t o n s a y s t h a t a n A r a b i c t r a n s l a t o r o f D i o s c o r i d e s ’ D e
Materia Medica (the first Century A.D.) translates the Greek
=)Irij
into the Arabic īrisā and regards it as a ‘t ype’ of sawsan. According to
J o h n s t o n , I b n a l - B a y t a r ( 11 9 7 - 1 2 4 8 ) c l a s s i f i e s t h e A r a b i c s ū s a n i n t o
24
25
26
G e s e n i u s 1 0 4 7 . s . v. ‘ s h u s h ’ .
D a v i d s o n 7 0 7 - 8 . s . v. ‘ s h u s h ’ .
We h r 5 1 5 . s . v. ‘ PQQQQQQQQQRSR’ .
Mizota 16
three varieties: white (or azād), wild, and cultivated.27 In Arabic, it is
j u s t c o n c e i v a b l e t h a t t h e PQQQQQQQQRSR i s t r a d i t i o n a l l y r e g a r d e d a s ‘ l i l y ’ u n t i l
n o w.
A l t h o u g h J a m e s P. M a l l o r y i n s i s t s t h a t t h e w o r d s u s a n a n d
S u s a n n a h d e r i v e d f r o m t h e P e r s i a n c a p i t a l S u s a ( t o d a y ’s S h u s h i n
K h u z i s t a n o f I r a n ) , 2 8 h e p r o b a b l y b e l i e v e s i n f a l s e e t y m o l o g y. H i s i d e a
is diametrically opposed. Gesenius correctly writes, ‘the name, if
Semitic, signifies only lily’.29(cf. Neh. 1:1, Esth. 1:2 etc.)
Because the Semitic root sh-w-sh has survived in modern Arabic,
the Hebrew shoshanah is virtuall y assured to be regarded as ‘lil y’. For
your information, in English, the Hebrew word shoshanah is used as a
popular personal name ‘Susannah’ through the Bible.30
27
T h e E n c y c l o p e d i a o f I s l a m 9 0 2 . s . v. ‘ S Ū S A N ’ .
Hehn 475-6.
29
G e s e n i u s 1 0 4 7 - 8 . s . v. ‘ s u s h a n ’ .
30
K e n k y u s h a ’s N e w E n g l i s h - J a p a n e s e D i c t i o n a r y 2 4 7 5 . s . v.
‘Susannah’.
28
Mizota 17
Chapter II
Martin Luther and Johannes Reuchlin
2 . 1 . L u t h e r ’s I n v e r t e d C h o i c e o f Tr a n s l a t e d Wo r d s
J a m e s P. M a l l o r y s a y s , ‘ E n g l i s h r e a d e r s w i l l r e m e m b e r t h a t t h e i r
Bible changes “rose” ever y time into “lil y” though its “rose of Sharon”
i s a b l u n d e r s i m i l a r t o L u t h e r ’s ’ . 3 1
E s p e c i a l l y, a b o u t t h i s L u t h e r ’s
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , Vi c t o r H e h n ( 1 8 1 3 - 1 8 9 0 ) s a y s ‘ L u t h e r, f o l l o w i n g t h e
Rabbinical interpretation, has wrongly translated the Hebrew susan,
s u s a n n a h , b y r o s e ’ . 3 2 H o w e v e r, H e r n ’s t h e o r y i s n o t w e l l - r e s e a r c h e d .
T h e r e f o r e , l e t u s r e e x a m i n e L u t h e r ’s i n v e r t e d c h o i c e o f t r a n s l a t e d
words.
T h e r e i s a n a n e c d o t e a b o u t M a r t i n L u t h e r ( 1 4 8 3 - 1 5 4 6 ) ’s h a v i n g
c o m p l e t e d t h e t r a n s l a t i o n o f t h e N e w Te s t a m e n t w i t h i n o n l y 11 w e e k s . 3 3
We c a n f i n d t h a t h i s G r e e k a b i l i t y w a s s u p e r i o r. H o w e v e r i t t o o k a b o u t
t w e l v e y e a r s f o r L u t h e r s l o w l y t o t r a n s l a t e t h e O l d Te s t a m e n t a n d e v e n
then his translation in the early stages was published in installments.34
W h i l e h i s t r a n s l a t i o n m a n u s c r i p t s o f t h e N e w Te s t a m e n t h a v e
b e e n l o s t , t h o s e o f t h e O l d Te s t a m e n t s u r v i v e . H i s i n i t i a l t r a n s l a t i o n i s
written in black ink on the manuscripts, and then was corrected in red
ink. His manuscripts of Canticles is contained in ‘Berliner Handschrift’,
a n d p u b l i s h e d a s t h e We i m a r E d i t i o n . 3 5
31
32
33
34
35
Hehn 188-9.
Hehn 188-9.
Kooiman 134.
Kooiman 191-2.
WA , D e u t c h e B i b e l . B a n d . I . 6 3 2 - 9 .
Mizota 18
A s c a n b e s e e n f r o m t h e L u t h e r ’s C a n t i c l e s m a n u s c r i p t , h e d o e s
not correct Cant. 2:1-3a at all. (See Fig. 5).
F i g . 5 . WA e d i t i o n L u t h e r ’ s ‘ B e r l i n e r H a n d s c h r i f t ’ ( C a n t . C h a p . 2 )
M o r e o v e r, i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e ‘ H a n d s c h r i f t ’ , t h e r e i s n o c h a n g e o f
t r a n s l a t e d w o r d i n C a n t . 2 : 1 i n b o t h t h e 1 5 2 4 a n d 1 5 4 5 v e r s i o n . We c a n
understand Luther had been firmly confident about his translated words
until his death in 1546.
(Luther: Handschrift 1523-4) Jch byn eyne blüme zu Saron und eyn rose ym tal.
(Luther: 1524)
Jch byn eyne blume zu Saron, und eyn rose im tal.
(Luther: 1545)
Jch bin ein Blumen zu Saron, und ein Rose im tal.
We s h o u l d a s k w h e r e L u t h e r g o t t h e i d e a o f t r a n s l a t i o n . I n o t h e r
words, we must inquire why Luther did not regard habatseleth but
s h o s h a n a h a s r o s e . T h e r e f o r e w e m u s t s e a r c h L u t h e r ’s w o r k s o t h e r t h a n
h i s t r a n s l a t i o n t o k n o w h i s p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e s e f l o w e r n a m e s i n H e b r e w.
There is littl e possibilit y that Germ an versi ons before Lut her
i n f l u e n c e d h i m . I n C a n t i c l e s , i n t h e 11 t h C e n t u r y, t h e f i r s t G e r m a n
Mizota 19
v e r s i o n i s b y Wi l l i r a m ( 1 0 1 0 - 1 0 8 5 ) . I n 1 4 6 6 , J o h a n n e s M e n t e l i n
(1410-1478)
had
already
translated
and
published
the
Canticles.
H o w e v e r, a s f o l l o w s , i t s e e m s u n l i k e l y t h a t t h o s e P r e - R e f o r m a t i o n
v e r s i o n s i n f l u e n c e d L u t h e r. F o r t h o s e v e r s i o n s f o l l o w t h e Vu l g a t e q u i t e
well closely regarding the flower names.
(The Vulgate /Lat.)
ego flos campi et lilium convalium.
(Williram: c.1000)
Íh bín uéltblûoma unte lília déro télero. 3 6
(Mentelin: 1466）
Ich bin ein plum des feldes: vnd ein lilig der teller. 3 7
(Luther: Handschrift 1523-4) Jch byn eyne blüme zu Saron und eyn rose ym tal.
2 . 2 . T h e A n a l y s i s o f Tr a n s l a t e d Wo r d s I n v e r t e d b y L u t h e r
Perhaps this problem has a relationship not with the Canticle 2:1
but with 2:2 in the Hebrew word shoshanah. For Luther seems to
understand Cant.2:2 as the obedience to patience and effort, and favor
t h e v e r s e . F o r y o u r i n f o r m a t i o n , H e b r e w t e x t a n d A . V. v e r s i o n i n
C a n t . 2 : 2 g o a s f o l l o w.
(BHS: 1977/Heb.)
Keshoshannah ben hahohim, ken raguyatsy ben habanots.
(A.V. : 1611/ Eng.)
As the lilie among thornes, so is my loue among the daughters.
In the letter on April 8, 1516, Luther warmly counsels patience
and effort to George Spenlein, a monk who incurred considerable
36
37
Wi l l i r a m s 9 .
K u r r e l m e y e r 11 8 .
Mizota 20
monetary debts.
Igitur si es lilium et rosa Christi, scito, quoniam inter
spinas conversatio tua erit;38
If you are a lil y and a rose of C hrist, therefore, know that
you will live among thorns.39
We n e e d t o r e c a l l t h a t L u t h e r n a i l e d t h e 9 5 T h e s e s t o t h e d o o r o f
t h e C a s t l e C h u r c h i n Wi t t e n b e r g o n O c t o b e r 3 1 , 1 5 1 7 . F o r t h i s v e r y
reason, it seems reasonable to say that Luther already regarded
shoshanah in Cant 2:2 as ‘rose’ in the year before Luther began his
‘Reformation’. Luther did not regard shoshanah as ‘lil y’ or ‘rose’ yet.
However it is important that, at that time, he thought a probability that
shoshanah was ‘rose’. This Cant. 2:2 is translated in part in an open
letter dated March in 1521 to Hieron ymus Emser (1477-1527), an
o p p o n e n t o f L u t h e r.
Doch es musz also sein, wie geschrieben Cantic.2. ‘wie die
rosen unter den dornen, also me yne freund ynn unter den
tochternn’.40
However it should be the same that Cant.2 sa ys, ‘just like
38
39
40
WA , B r i e f B a n d . I . 3 3 - 6 .
L u t h e r ' s Wo r k s o n C D - R O M , ‘ To G e o r g e S p e n l e i n ’ .
WA , S c h r i f t e n B a n d . V I I . 6 1 5 f f .
Mizota 21
the
rose
among
the
thorns,
my
lover
is
among
the
daughters’.
T h e r e f o r e , m o s t i m p o r t a n t l y, L u t h e r a l r e a d y i n t e n d e d t o t r a n s l a t e
shoshanah into ‘rose’ long before he began his translation. It was in
1523 or 24 that Luther began to translate Canticles.
These can be summarized as follows.
( 1 ) We c a n i n f e r a p r i o r i t h a t L u t h e r, w h o w a s f a m i l i a r w i t h L a t i n
a n d t h e Vu l g a t e , c l e a r l y r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e Vu l g a t e h a d t r a n s l a t e d t h e
word shoshanah into ‘lilium’ in Cant.2:2.
(2) As of his writing the letter to George Spenlein in 1516,
though Luther vacillated between lily and rose, he thought that the
word shoshanah of Cant.2:2 could be interpreted as ‘rose’.
(3)
In an open letter in 1521, Luther had determined the
translation that interpreted the word shoshanah of Cant.2:2 as ‘rose’.
(4) When Luther translated the whole of Canticles in 1523 or 24,
based
on
the
translation of Cant.2:2 determined
in advance,
he
interpreted ‘shoshanaha’amaqim’ in Cant.2:1 as ‘und e yn rose ym tal’.
2.3. Luther and Medieval Interpretations
We m u s t s e a r c h f o r t h e m a t e r i a l s t o w h i c h L u t h e r r e f e r r e d . I t i s
important that Luther chose ‘rose’ as the translated word of shoshanah.
A c c o r d i n g t o J a m e s G e o r g e K i e c k e r, L u t h e r r e f e r r e d f r e q u e n t l y t o
t h e P o s t i l l a o f N i c h o l a s o f Ly r a ( 1 2 7 0 - 1 3 4 9 ) , a F r a n c i s c a n t e a c h e r w h o
fully mastered Hebrew in the Middle Ages. Kiecker insists that
Mizota 22
s i m i l a r i t i e s o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n b e t w e e n L u t h e r a n d Ly r a a r e e s p e c i a l l y
p r o m i n e n t i n c h a p t e r 6 o f C a n t i c l e s . 4 1 H o w e v e r, i n t h e d i s p u t e d v e r s e
of chapter 2,
Ego flos campi, id est, modo habito pura et munda extra
vilitatem Aegypti. Et lilium convallium, quasi diceret,
quando eram in Aegypto, eram quasi lilium in monte, cuius
color obfuscatur solis ardore, sicut dixit supra. Decoloravit
me sol. Sed modo sum sicui lilium in valle, quod habet
colorem recentem ex vallis humore, et quia Deo placet
sponsae gratitudo, ideo subdit eam commendando:42
[Ch.2:1] I am the flower of the field, that is, I now live
purified and cleansed, awa y from the vileness of Egypt, and
the lily of the valleys, as if she would sa y: When I was in
Egypt, I was like a lil y on the mountain, whose color has
been faded by the harshness of the sun. As the bride said
e a r l i e r, T h e s u n h a t h a l t e r e d m y c o l o r [ C h . 1 : 5 ] . B u t n o w I
a m l i k e a l i l y i n t h e v a l l e y, w h i c h h a s r e c e i v e d c o l o r f r o m
t h e v a l l e y ’s m o i s t u r e . B e c a u s e t h e t h a n k s w h i c h t h e b r i d e
o f f e r s p l e a s e s G o d , h e p r a i s e s h e r, s a y i n g . [ Tr a n s . J . G.
Kiecker]43
41
42
43
Kiecker 19-22.
Kiecker 47.
Kiecker 47.
Mizota 23
Based on the quotation of ‘The sun hath altered my color ’ in 1:5,
one might regard the flower as rose. However a colored flower is
n e i t h e r n e c e s s a r y n o r a s u f f i c i e n t c o n d i t i o n f o r r o s e . We m u s t a v o i d
this kind of identification in academic argument as far as possible.
It is unlikely that medieval works in Latin, having an indirect
c o n n e c t i o n w i t h H e b r e w, h a d a n i n f l u e n c e o n L u t h e r.
2.4. Reuchlin and Luther
In 1509, Luther acquired De Rudimentis Hebraicis (1506). The
first Hebrew primer was compiled by Johannes Reuchlin (1455-1522).
L u t h e r w r o t e e x t r a c t s f r o m t h i s p r i m e r i n t h e m a r g i n o f h i s Vu l g a t e
version.
44
T h i s p r i m e r h a s a H e b r e w - L a t i n g l o s s a r y. B a s e d o n t h i s
g l o s s a r y, L u t h e r m a y h a v e s e a r c h e d t h e H e b r e w m e a n i n g s i n h i s e a r l y
da ys.
The glossary of this primer does not have an entry for the word
s h o s h a n a h . H o w e v e r, i t d e f i n e s t h e H e b r e w w o r d h a b a t s e l e t h ( F i g . 6 . ) .
habatseleth
Rosa. flos. Canticorum secundo. Ego flos
campi.45
h a b a t s e l e t h R o s e . F l o w e r. C a n t i c l e s C h a p t e r t w o . I a m t h e
f l o w e r o f t h e f i e l d . [ Tr a n s . M i z o t a ]
44
Kooiman 102-5.
45
R e u c h l i n , D e R u d i m e n t i s H e b r a i c i s 1 6 1 . s . v. ’ h a b a t s e l e t ’ .
Mizota 24
Fig. 6. The item of habatseleth in De Rudimentis Hebraicis
Hirsch sa ys that the glossar y of the primer is a close imitation of
Sefer Hahorashim edited by a Rabbi in the Middle Ages, David
K i m c h i ( 11 6 0 - 1 2 3 5 ) . T h e f i r s t e d i t i o n w a s p r i n t e d i n 1 4 8 0 .
46
H o w e v e r,
there is no entry of the word habatseleth in Sefer Hahorashim.
It
is
an
undeniable
fact
that
Luther
used
47
R e u c h l i n ’s
De
Rudimentis Hebraicis. It is true that this lexicon does not have an
i m p o r t a n t i n f l u e n c e o n L u t h e r ’s b i b l i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . H o w e v e r i t
m a k e s n o s e n s e a t a l l t h a t L u t h e r d i r e c t l y r e f e r r e d t o R e u c h l i n ’s
Lexicon for interpretation of shoshanah in Cant 2:2.
For your information, the definition of words in lexicons in those
da ys was varied. As an example, Biblia Complutensis (1514-1517) is
given here (Fig. 7).
Fig. 7. The item of habatseleth in Biblia Complutensis48
46
Hirsch 460-1
Rabbi Davidis Kimchi ed., Hebraeum Bibliorum Lexicon: cum
Animadversionibus Eliae Levitae (Berlin: 1847).
48
B i b l i a C o m p l u t e n s i s , v o l . 6 s . v. “ h a b a t s e l e t ” .
47
Mizota 25
2.5. Rel ati onshi p betw een Reuchl i n’s Gutacht en and Luth er ’s transl ati on
O r i g i n a l l y, J o h a n n e s R e u c h l i n w a s a c a p a b l e G r e e k s c h o l a r.
Reuchlin met Pico della Mirandla in 1490, and then he began to be
interested in Kabbalah of Jewish commentaries. In 1496, Reuchlin
v i s i t e d t h e f a m o u s l i b r a r y o f J o h a n n e s Tr i t h e m i u s ( 1 4 6 2 - 1 5 1 6 ) , w h i c h
c o n t a i n e d m a n y b o o k s r e l e v a n t t o H e b r e w. Ta k i n g t h i s o p p o r t u n i t y,
Reuchlin compiled De Rudimentis Hebraicis. For this reason Reuchlin
became the famous Hebraist. He defended the advantage of Jewish
knowl ed ge ov er ag ainst J ohann Pfefferk orn who ass erted stro n gl y th at
Jewish books should be destro yed.49
At 6 October 1510 in the next year of publication of De
Rudimentis Hebraicis, Reuchlin himself sent the famous letter for the
defense
addressed
to
Uriel
who
was
the
archbishop
of
Maintz,
Gutachten über das Jüdishe Schriften (The certificate about Jewish
works).
U ß d i s e m t e x t n e m m e n w i r, d a s w i r m ö g e n b ö ß u n d g u t s
durchainander lessen und lernen, das böß mit vernünftigen
wort en zu straffen und das gut, so d aru nder wi e di e ro ßen
in ’n dornen gefunden wirt, in den gebrauch der hailigen
lere zu bewenden.50
We m a y r e a d g o o d a n d e v i l w r i t i n g s s i d e b y s i d e a n d
49
50
E n c y c l o p a e d i a J u d a i c a , v o l . 1 4 . 1 0 8 - 11 s . v. ‘ R e u c h l i n ’ .
Johannes Reuchlin, ‘Gutachten über das Jüdische Schrifttum’ 61.
Mizota 26
examine them; evil writings to rectify them with prudent
words, and good writings, which can be found like roses
among thorns, to use them and apply them to sacred
t e a c h i n g . [ Tr a n s . E r i k a R u m m e l ] 5 1
At
least,
there
is
no
doubt
that
Reuchlin
regarded
both
habatseleth and shoshanah as ‘rose’ before he wrote this Gutachten
über das Jüdishe Schriften back in 1510.
M e a n w h i l e , L u t h e r, w h o w a s a t h e o l o g i a n a t t h a t t i m e , o b s e r v e d
the d evel opm ent o f the cont rov ers y between Reu chli n and Pfefferkorn
with great interest. In 1514 before his ‘Reformation’, Luther wrote to
George Spalatin (1484-1545) that Luther himself believed that Reuchlin
was innocent and recommended pra ying for Reuchlin. 52 It is ver y likel y
that Luther adopted the interpretation of ‘rose’ directly from some of
R e u c h l i n ’s l e t t e r s , b e c a u s e h e f i r s t l y w a s i n t e r e s t e d i n ‘ r o s e u n t e r d e n
dornen’ in Cant. 2:2.
2 . 6 . T h e P o s s i b i l i t y o f R e u c h l i n ’s R e f e r e n c e s
We s h a l l d i s c u s s i n d e t a i l w h a t R e u c h l i n h i m s e l f r e f e r r e d t o .
F i r s t l y, a n y H e b r e w o r A r a m a i c w o r k s h o u l d b e g i v e n . J u s t a f t e r
the extract cited above in Gutachten, there is an interesting statement.
F o r i t [ = Ta l m u d ] c o n t a i n s m a n y g o o d m e d i c a l p r e s c r i p t i o n s
51
Johann Reuchlin, ‘Report about the books of the Jews’ 92.
L u t h e r ’s Wo r k s o n C D - R o m ‘ To G e o r g e S p a l a t i n Wi t t e n b e r g , A u g u s t
5 , 1 5 1 4 ’ . v o l . 4 8 : L e t t e r s 3 . t r a n s . T h e o d o r G. Ta p p e r t .
52
Mizota 27
and information about plants and roots, as well as good
legal
verdicts
collected
from
all
over
the
world
by
experienced Jews . . . . This can be seen from the bishop of
B u r g o s ’s [ s i c . ] b o o k s c o n c e r n i n g t h e B i b l e , w h i c h h e h a s
w r i t t e n i n a p r a i s e w o r t h y a n d C h r i s t i a n m a n n e r, a n d i n t h e
Scrutinium, in which he clearly protects our faith on the
b a s i s o f t h e Ta l m u d . [ Tr a n s . E r i k a R u m m e l ] 5 3
A l t h o u g h R e u c h l i n w a s i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e Ta l m u d f o r i n f o r m a t i o n
about ‘plants and roots’, Reuchlin himself confesses he could not
d i r e c t l y r e f e r t o t h e Ta l m u d a t t h e t i m e o f w r i t i n g G u t a c h t e n . 5 4 A s h e
sa ys,
he
indirectly
knew
about
the
Ta l m u d
thorough
Scrutinium
Scripturarum of Pablo de Santa Maria (1351-1435). Although I cannot
say for certain because I cannot refer to Scrutinium Scripturarum, I
t h i n k t h a t i t i s u n l i k e l y. T h i s i s b e c a u s e t h e r e i s n o r e f e r e n c e t o C a n t .
2 : 2 i n t h e Ta l m u d .
B a s e d o n K a r l C h r i s t , S t e p h e n G. B u r n e t t s a y s t h a t R e u c h l i n h a d
t h e f o l l o w i n g m a t e r i a l s i n h i s l i b r a r y.
B. Sanhedrin (MS).
Biblia rabbinica (Bomberg, 1517)
Pentateuch with Tg. Onqelos (Bologna, 1482)
P r o p h e t s o f Ta rg u m J o n a t h a n ( M S )
53
54
55
55
Reuchlin, ‘Report about the books of the Jews’ 92.
Reuchlin, ‘Report about the books of the Jews’ 89.
Burnett 435.
Mizota 28
A s n o t e d a b o v e , R e u c h l i n c o u l d n o t d i r e c t l y r e f e r t o t h e Ta l m u d .
Therefore it is at a later date that Reuchlin got the manuscript of
Ta l m u d
Sanhedrin.
Moreover
Biblia
rabbinica
had
not
yet
been
p u b l i s h e d i n 1 5 11 . T h e r e i s a p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t R e u c h l i n r e f e r s t o
A r a m a i c w o r k s s u c h a s Ta rg u m .
S e c o n d l y,
Commentariorum
Isaiam
of
St.
Jerome
(Eusebius
Hieron ymus: c.342-420) should be given because Reuchlin was a Greek
scholar
because
St.
J e r o m e ’s
Commentariorum
Isaiam
regards
h a b a t s e l e t h a s ‘ r o s e ’ a s d e s c r i b e d l a t e r. S i n c e a n c i e n t t i m e s , S t .
J e r o m e ’s w o r k s h a v e b e e n w e l l k n o w n i n t h e f i e l d o f t h e o l o g y a n d
linguistic
throughout
We s t e r n
Europe.
From
the
standpoint
that
Reuchlin gives an example as Cant. 2:1 in De Rudimentis Hebraicis
though he does not regard habatseleth but shoshannah as ‘rose’ in
Gutachten, it is apparent that Reuchlin adopted both interpretations. In
this case, Reuchlin defined the meaning of shoshannah by analogy with
h a b a t s e l e t h a s ‘ r o s e ’ . H o w e v e r, i f R e u c h l i n c o n f o r m e d t o S t . J e r o m e ’s
Commentariorum Isaiam, it would appear that Reuchlin did not use the
expression ‘like roses among thorns’.
E v e n t u a l l y, w e c a n h a r d l y a v o i d t h e d i s c u s s i o n a b o u t S t . J e r o m e ’s
c o m m e n t a r y. T h e c o n t e n t s o f S t . J e r o m e ’s w o r k s w i l l b e g i v e n i n
Chapter IV in detail.
Mizota 29
Chapter III
T h e Ta r g u m C a n t i c l e s
3 . 1 . T h e Wo r d ‘ Wa r d a ’ i n t h e Ta r g u m C a n t i c l e s 2 : 2
T h e w o r k s c a l l e d t h e Ta rg u m a r e g i v e n a s a g e n e r i c n a m e o f
t r a n s l a t i o n a l c o m m e n t a r i e s i n A r a m a i c o f t h e O l d Te s t a m e n t . A c c o r d i n g
to Ezra 4:7, the tradition of translation in Aramaic goes back to the era
o f t h e S e c o n d Te m p l e . T h e v e r b ‘ A r a m i t ’ i n E z r a 4 : 7 w a s u s e d i n t h e
broadest sense of translating from Hebrew into other languages. In
contrast, the word ‘targum’ quite definitely has been used as the
meaning of the Aramaic translation of Biblical text.56
T h e Ta rg u m C a n t i c l e s i s d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e o t h e r t r a d i t i o n o f
interpretation in Cant.2:1-2. Although most ancient versions regard
s h o s h a n a h a s ‘ l i l y ’ , t h e Ta rg u m C a n t i c l e s i n t e r p r e t s i t a s ‘ r o s e ’ .
T h e Ta rg u m C a n t i c l e s i n 2 : 1 i s a s f o l l o w.
Ta r g u m :
T h e C o n g r e g a t i o n o f I s r a e l s a y s : ‘ W h e n t h e M a s t e r o f Wo r l d
causes His Shekinah to dwell in the midst of me I may be
c o m p a r e d t o a f r e s h n a r c i s s u s [ n a rq i s ] f r o m t h e G a r d e n o f
Eden , and m y d e ed s a r e as f ai r as t he ros e [ w arda] t h at i s i n
t h e p l a i n o f t h e G a r d e n o f E d e n . ’ [ Tr a n s . P. S . A l e x a n d e r ] 5 7
56
57
T h e J e w i s h e n c y c l o p e d i a , v o l . 2 . 3 4 s . v. ‘ A q u i l a ’ .
Alexander 42, 96.
Mizota 30
3.2. E ty mologi cal Rela tionship B etw een ‘w arda’ and ‘rosa ’
T h e r e i s s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o p r o v e t h a t t h e A r a m a i c ‘ w a rd a ’
has the same meaning as the Latin ‘rosa’ or the Greek ‘r(o/don’. That is
to
s a y,
the
two
words
have
an
et ymological
relationship.
The
equivalence of meaning among languages under stud y must be alwa ys
c o n f i r m e d i n s o m e w a y.
T h e e t y m o l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e A r a m a i c ‘ w a rd a ’ a n d
the Latin ‘rosa’ has often been noted.
Wa l t e r W. S k e a t , p h i l o l o g i s t , ( 1 8 3 5 - 1 9 1 2 ) s a y s t h a t t h e L a t i n
word ‘rose’ is a loan-word from Greek, i.e. r(o/don. He assumes the
Latin ‘rosa’ was borrowed from *r(oza, one of the Aeolian forms.
A d d i t i o n a l l y, S k e a t s a y s , t h e G r e e k ‘ r ( o / d o n ’ i s b o r r o w e d f r o m t h e O l d
P e r s i a n v a r t ā ( a r o s e ) , w h e n c e a l s o t h e A r m e n i a n a n d A r a b i c w a rd . 5 8
N o w, a s i m i l a r a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e S e m i t i c l a n g u a g e s b o r r o w e d t h e
word for rose from the Old Persian seems to be widely accepted by
We s t e r n e t y m o l o g i s t s .
Meanwhile, Ernest Klein (1899-1983), a Canadian linguist, said
t h a t t h e A r a m a i c w a rd ā c o m e s f r o m t h e O l d P e r s i a n a s w e l l . H e i n s i s t s
t h a t t h e O l d P e r s i a n * w rd a - ( a r o s e ) c a n b e t r a c e d b a c k t o t h e
P r o t o - I n d o - E u r o p e a n * w rd h o - ( t h o r n , b r a m b l e ) a n d a d d u c e s t h e O l d
English
w o rd
(bramble)
and
the
Norwegian
ōr,
ōl
( f o r * o rd ) .
59
How ev er hi s t heo r y t h at t he * w rd a- ca n b e t r ac ed ba ck t o t h e
58
59
S k e a t 5 2 4 . s . v. ‘ R O S E ’ .
K l e i n 1 5 3 7 . s . v. ‘ r o s e ’ .
Mizota 31
P r o t o - I n d o - E u r o p e a n r o o t i s f a r f r o m a c c e p t e d w i d e l y. C a l v e r t Wa t k i n s
said that the word is not common and the origin is not known.60
R e c e n t l y, E d w a r d L i p i ń s k i i n s i s t e d o n a n e w t h e o r y. H e s a i d t h a t
Semitic words for ‘rose’ is a common Mediterranean or Near Eastern
noun which is alread y attested to in Mycenaean dialect *Fordo-[si c.],
a variant of *Frodo-[sic.] that appears as bro/don in the Aeolian of 7th
Century B.C. He apparently suspects that the Semitic noun originated
f r o m P e r s i a n s p e a k i n g a r e a , b a s e d o n t h e e l e m e n t w rd w i t h ‘ r o s e ’
concept in ancient personal names in North Arabian cultures such as
Nabatean, P alm yrene, and S afaitic. 61 Probabl y the 7th Centur y B.C.
a u t h o r i t y r e f e r r e d t o b y L i p i ń s k i i s S a p p h o ’s p o e m . 6 2 J u s t l y, G r a y A .
R e n d s b u r g r e g a r d s L i p i ń s k i ’s t h e o r y a s ‘ a w e a l t h o f e v i d e n c e t o s u g g e s t
o t h e r w i s e ’ a n d b r i n g s a c a d e m i a ' s a t t e n t i o n t o t h e n e w t h e o r y. 6 3
In any case, it is right to think that most scholars acknowledge
som e sort o f et ym o l ogi c al rel at i on shi p b et w een t h e Ar a m ai c w arda and
t h e L a t i n ro s a .
3 . 3 . T h e A u t h o r ’s i n t e n t i o n
T h e t r a n s l a t o r o f t h e Ta rg m C a n t i c l e s t r a n s l a t e s h a b a t s e l e t h a s
n a rq i s .
64
This
Aramaic
narqi s
seems
to
be
cognate
with
Greek
n a / r k i s s o j ( n a r c i s s u s ) . A c c o r d i n g t o P h i l i p S . A l e x a n d e r, t h e Ta rg u m
Canticles have a lot of words of Greek origin. Some examples
60
61
62
63
64
Wa t k i n s 7 8 - 9 s . v. ’ w r o d - ’ .
Lipiński 560-1.
A G re e k - E n g l i s h L e x i c o n 3 3 0 . s . v. ’ b r o / d o n ’ .
Rendsburg 437-38.
Alexander 42.
Mizota 32
f o l l o w ; ’ r k w n = a r c h ō n ‘ r u l e r ’ [ 4 : 3 ] , d w r w n = d ō ro n ‘ g i f t ’ [ 4 : 8 ] , n y m w s
= nomos ‘law’ [1:6], plty’ = plateia ‘street’ [3:2] and so on. Alexander
insists, however that most of these words are early loanwords of Jewish
A r a m a i c . 6 5 T h e w o r d n a rq i s s e e m s t o b e o n e o f t h e l o a n w o r d s o f t h a t
nature. In any case, it is clear that the intended meaning by the author
o f t h e Ta rg u m C a n t i c l e s i s a ‘ b u l b ’ p l a n t . T h e M o d e r n A r a b i c n a r j ū s ,
which has a meaning of ‘narcissus’,66 is an indirect proof that the
A r a m a i c n a rq i s h a s t h e m e a n i n g o f ‘ n a r c i s s u s ’ .
A l e x a n d e r i n s i s t s t h a t t h e r e n d e r i n g h a b a t s e l e t h i n t o n a rq i s i n
C a n t . 2 : 1 c o m e s n o p r o b l e m b e c a u s e t h e Ta rg u m C a n t i c l e s r e g a r d
habatseleth as a ‘parallelism’ with shoshanah. 67 In this case, it is
l i k e l y t h a t t h e a u t h o r o f t h e Ta rg u m C a n t i c l e s r e g a r d e d h a b a t s e l e t h a s
s y n o n y m o u s w i t h s h o s h a n a h . T h e r e i s w a rd a a s t h e e q u i v a l e n t o f
s h o s h a n a h e l s e i n Ta rg u m C a n t i c l e s 2 : 1 3 a n d 6 : 2 .
3 . 4 . R e l a t i o n s h i p o f Ta r g u m w i t h A q u i l a ’s v e r s i o n a m o n g J e w s
Next let us explore the material referred to by the author of the
Ta rg u m C a n t i c l e s .
Martin
Hengel
(b.1926),
a
famous
Biblicist,
said
that
the
Septuaginta which had been composed and used originally by Jewish
people in origin became gradually the authoritative version for early
Christians, while the version of Aquila of Sinope(the second C entur y)
was chosen as the new authoritative version by Jewish communities.
65
66
67
Alexander 12.
T h e Te m p l e D i c t i o n a r y o f t h e B i b l e 6 8 0 . s . v. ‘ R O S E ’ .
Alexander 42.
Mizota 33
H e n g e l b r i n g s f o r w a r d i n t e r e s t i n g t e s t i m o n y. T h e t e s t i m o n y c o n t a i n s a
d o c u m e n t t h e D i a l o g u e o f Ti m o t h y a n d A q u i l a w r i t t e n i n t h e 5 t h o r 6 t h
C e n t u r y. I n t h e d o c u m e n t , a C h r i s t i a n c h a r a c t e r c o m p l a i n s t h a t J e w i s h
p e o p l e u s e t h e d i v i n e s c r i p t u r e s f a l s i f i e d b y A q u i l a t h e t r a n s l a t o r.
H e n g e l i n s i s t s t h a t t h e t e s t i m o n y s h o w s t h a t A q u i l a ’s v e r s i o n w a s
d o m i n a n t l y u s e d i n J e w i s h s y n a g o g u e s i n t h o s e d a y s . E v e n t u a l l y,
Jewish people kept their distance from the Septuaginta.68
I t i s j u s t c o n c e i v a b l e t h a t t h e a u t h o r i t y o f A q u i l a ’s v e r s i o n w a s
e s t a b l i s h e d i n J e w i s h c o m m u n i t i e s w h e n t h e Ta rg u m C a n t i c l e s w a s
written.
And then, when the Greek language as the linga franca of Egypt
and the Levant began to decline with the conquest of Muslim-led forces,
A q u i l a ’s
version
translated
into
Greek
was
neglected
in
Jewish
communities. The fact that we have little remaining manuscript directly
based on Aquila ensures it.69
M o r e o v e r, i n t h e B a b y l o n i a n Ta l m u d a n d t h e Ts e f t a , t h e t r a n s l a t o r
o f t h e Ta rg u m O n k e l o s w h i c h o n l y c o n t a i n s t h e F i v e B o o k s o f M o s e s
was
identified
with
misunderstanding.
Aquila.
Most
Of
scholars
course,
consider
it
is
the
confusion
name
from
‘ Ta r g u m
a
of
O n k e l o s ’ a s a p p l i e d t o t h e Ta rg u m o f t h e P e n t a t e u c h . 7 0
We s h o u l d n o t i c e t h a t A q u i l a ’s v e r s i o n h a d b e e n a u t h o r i z e d
a m o n g J e w i s h c o m m u n i t i e s b y t h e t i m e t h e Ta rg u m C a n t i c l e s w a s
68
Hengel 21-34.
T h e J e w i s h e n c y c l o p e d i a , v o l . 9 , 3 4 s . v. ‘ A q u i l a ’ .
70
T h e J e w i s h e n c y c l o p e d i a , v o l . 9 , 3 6 s . v. ‘ A q u i l a : R e l a t i o n t o
Onkelos’.
69
Mizota 34
written.
Mizota 35
Chapter IV
A q u i l a ’s G r e e k Ve r s i o n a n d St . J e r o m e
4 . 1 . A q u i l a ’s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f h a b a t s e l e t h w i t h k a l u / k w s i j
Aquila ( )Aku/laj) was originally a non-Jewish person from
Pontus. According to Epiphanius, about the year 128, Aquila was
appointed to an office concerned with the rebuilding of Jerusalem as
‘ Ælia Capitolina’ by the emperor Hadrian (76 A.D. -138 A.D.). It is
thought that Aquila originally was interested in the Christians, but later
he converted to Judaism. St. Jerome sa ys that Aquila was a disciple of
A k i b a b e n J o s e p h ( R a b b i A k i b a : 5 0 A . D . – 1 3 5 A . D . ) , a n d t h e Ta l m u d
reported that he accomplished his translation under the influence of
A k i b a . N o w A q u i l a ’s v e r s i o n r e m a i n s i n O r i g e n ’s H e x a p l a e x c e p t s o m e
fragments.71
The Hexapla was edited by Origen (Origenes: c.185-c.254), who
was a t ypical theologian of the Alexandrian S chool. In the Hexapla,
Origenes paralleled six texts as follows:
( 1 ) t h e o r i g i n a l t e x t o f t h e H e b r e w,
( 2 ) t h e t r a n s l i t e r a t i o n o f H e b r e w,
(3) the Septuagint,
(4) Greek translation by Aquila,
(5) Greek translation b y S ymmachus,
(6) Greek translation by Theodotion.
Origen intended to show the difference between each version in
71
T h e J e w i s h e n c y c l o p e d i a , v o l . 2 , 3 4 s . v. ‘ A q u i l a ’ .
Mizota 36
t h e H e x a p l a . T h e H e x a p l a b e l o n g e d t o t h e l i b r a r y o f C a e s a r e a . H o w e v e r,
it is thought that most original manuscripts were scattered and lost in
the 7th Centur y when Muslims destroyed the librar y of Caesarea. The
Hexapla would have been far too huge to have made a complete
transcription.
72
Surviving fragments of the Hexapla are edited and published.
Here are the appropriate verses in the edition by Fridericus Field. Field
abbreviates
S e p t u a g i n t ’s
texts
used
by
Origen
to
‘
O’.’,
and
Aquila-written version to ‘ ’A.’ .
(Cant. 2:1.)
h a b a t s e l e t h h a s h a r o n . R o s a ( a l i i s l i l i u m ; a l i i s n a rc i s s u s ;
aliis colchicum autumunale) Saronis.
pedi/ou.
O’. a)/nqoj tou=
’A. kalu/kwsij tou= Sarw/n.73
(Isa. 35:1.)
habatseleth.
Rosa. O’. kri/non.
’A. kalu/kwsij.74
It is clear that Aquila identifies habatseleth with kalu/kwsij.
4 . 2 . E t y m o l o g i c a l M e a n i n g o f k a l u / k w s i j a n d A q u i l a ’s I n t e n t i o n
So as to clarify the core meaning of the word kalu/kwsij, and to
trace these translators’ motives of adoption of the translated words, we
72
73
74
T h e J e w i s h e n c y c l o p e d i a , v o l . 9 , 4 3 3 - 4 3 4 s . v. ‘ O r i g e n ’
O r i g e n i s H e x a p l o r u m , To m u s . 2 . 4 1 3 .
O r i g e n i s H e x a p l o r u m , To m u s . 2 . 4 9 9 .
Mizota 37
shall reexamine the et ymological origin of the word in detail.
The root in the Greek word kalu/kwsij is evidently ka/luc, and
then suffixes –wsij.
R e g a r d i n g t h i s k a / l u c , Wa l t e r Wi l l i a m S k e a t ( 1 8 3 5 - 1 9 1 2 ) , a n
English philologist, insists that the Greek ka/luc cognates with the
Sanskrit kalikā (a bud). Skeat traces the roots of these words to the
Proto-Indo-European
KĒL
meaning
‘to
c o v e r,
hide,
conceal’.
75
Moreover Skeat supposes that the Proto-Indo-European KĒL creates the
following words of European languages, i.e. Latin cel-la (a hut);
Anglo-Saxon hel-an (to hide), hel-m (a covering), heal-l (a hole),
hell-e (hell); Gothic hul-jan(to hide); Anglo-Saxon hol (a hole). It is
striking that Skeat regards the Greek kalu/ptein as a derivative word
from the Proto-Indo-European KĒL.76
A p p r o p r i a t e l y, T h e O x f o rd E n g l i s h D i c t i o n a r y d i r e c t l y r e g a r d s
the Greek ka/luc as a derivation of the verb kalu/ptein (to cover) and
m e a n s ‘ o u t e r c o v e r i n g o f a f r u i t , f l o w e r, o r b u d ; s h e l l , h u s k , p o d ,
pericarp’.
77
Judging from the above, even if there are strong doubts
about whether the Greek ka/luc originates in the Proto-Indo-European,
this do es not affect the v alidit y t hat th e Greek ka/ luc ori gin all y means
‘a covering of something’.
As above, while there is a convincing assumption that the Greek
ka/luc is cognate with the Sanskrit kalikā (bud of flower),78 Manfred
75
76
77
78
S k e a t 8 7 . s . v. ‘ C A LY X ’ .
S k e a t 7 5 4 . s . v. ‘ K E L ( H E L ) ’ .
O E D , v o l . 2 . 9 6 4 s . v. ’ - o s i s ’ .
Chantraine, vol. 1-2. 487.
Mizota 38
Ma yrhofer (b. 1926), an Indo-Europeanist of Indo-Iranian languages,
sa ys
the
Sanskrit
‘kalikā’(sixteenth
kalikā
part),
or
may
be
transferred
‘kalā?’ (small
part,
meaning
sixteenth
part).
of
79
H o w e v e r, i t i s j u s t c o n c e i v a b l e t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l m e a n i n g o f t h e k a / l u c
in the inner Greek remains unchanged.
Meanwhil e, Th e Greek su ffix –wsij o ri gin ates i n the ad dition of
the gen eral su ffix –sij. Th e su ffix –sij fo rm is us ed o f v erbal nou ns
of ‘an action, process or result’ specified by the combining root. These
words also were formed directly from the substantives or adjectives
themselves, or their compounds, without the intervention of a verb in
- o / w ( e . g . a ) n q r a / k w s i j m a l i g n a n t u l c e r, a n t h r a c o s i s , f r o m a ) / n q r a c ,
a)/nqrako- coal, carbuncle).80
In any case, we can be fairly certain that the Greek kalu/kwsij
c l e a r l y o r i g i n a l l y n e v e r h a d t h e c o n c e p t o f ‘ r o s e ’ . Wi t h a l l t h e a b o v e
considered,
the
word
kalu/kwsij
used
by
Aquila
seems
et ymologicall y to mean ‘some sort of action to cover something’, ‘some
sort of process to cover something’, or ‘some sort of result due to
c o v e r i n g s o m e t h i n g ’ . We m u s t f i n d o u t w h e n a n d h o w t h e c o n c e p t o f
‘rose’ was added to the word ka/luc.
If the Greek kalu/kwsij means ‘something which is just about
opening or shooting’ (i.e. an opening bud, a shooting bulb, &c.), even
though the Hebrew habatseleth has the meaning of ‘bulb’, Aquila could
regard the Hebrew habatseleth as the Greek kalu/kwsij.
79
Ma yrhofer 180-1.
S u f f i x e s a n d O t h e r Wo rd - F i n a l E l e m e n t s o f E n g l i s h 2 3 1 . s . v. ‘ - o s i s ’ . ;
O E D , v o l . 1 0 . 9 6 4 s . v. ‘ - o s i s ’ .
80
Mizota 39
Ac cor di n g t o t he s uppl em ent of A G ree k- Engl i s h L e xi co n, E. A .
B a r b e r, t h e e d i t o r o f t h i s s u p p l e m e n t , d e f i n e s t h e w o r d k a l u / k w s i j a s
follows.
* k a l u / k w s i j [ u ] , e w j , h ( , a f l o w e r, p e r h . m e a d o w - s a f f r o n
or pol ya nt hus narc i ssus , Aq . Is .35. 1, C a.2.1. 8 1
It is doubtful that this lexicon is original in Greek language
because this editor gives two examples of Aquila (i.e. Isaiah and
Canticles) in his Bible translation. If we work on the presupposition
that Biblical scholars regard the Hebrew word habatseleth as a flower
n a m e s u c h a s ‘ s a f f r o n ’ o r ‘ n a r c i s s u s ’ , i t i s f e l t t h a t t h e e d i t o r ’s
identi fication o f the word kalu/ kwsij wit h ‘mead ow-s affron’ o r
‘pol yanthus narcissus’ has roots in an assumption about habatseleth
made by Hebrew scholars. Because it is felt that there is no example of
the word kalu/kwsij except these two examples of Aquila, it is likely
that Aquila coined the word from ka/luc and –wsij as a ‘nonce word’
for his translation.
4 . 3 . St . J e r o m e ’s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f k a l u / k w s i j w i t h r o s a
It is in 383 that St. Jerome (Eusebius Hieron ymus: c.342-420),
b e g a n t o e d i t t h e Vu l g a t e o f L a t i n t r a n s l a t i o n u n d e r t h e o r d e r s o f P o p e
Damasus(c.304-84). Immediatel y after Damasus’ death, in 385, St.
Jerome emigrated to Bethlehem in the Holy Land. He studied under the
81
A G re e k - E n g l i s h L e x i c o n , ‘ A S u p p l e m e n t ’ 7 8 . s . v. ‘ k a l u / k w s i j ’ .
Mizota 40
J e w s o n t h e s p o t , a n d t h e n f i n i s h e d t h e t r a n s l a t i o n o f t h e Vu l g a t e .
82
St. Jerome, in his Commentariorum Isaiam, regards the meaning of
habetselet as the following quotation from the translation by Aquila.
Haec erat prius sitiens siue inuia non habens uitales aquas,
et dominus non ingrediebatur per eam, quae nunc florebit ut
lilium
siue,
ut
significantius
expressit
Aquila,
KALUKWSIS , quam nos tumentem rosam et necdum folis
dilatatis possumus dicere.83
This is previously arid or a back-country not having vital
w a t e r, a n d t h e L o r d d i d n o t g o t h r o u g h i t , w h i c h n o w
flourishes like a ‘lilium’, or like the meaning expressed by
Aquila, kalu/kwsij, which we can call a blossoming rose
w i t h s t i l l n o t o p e n i n g ‘ f o l i u m ’ . [ Tr a n s . M i z o t a ]
P r o b a b l y, f r o m t h e c o n t e x t i n J e r o m e ’s t r a n s l a t i o n , t h e L a t i n
w o r d ‘ f o l i u m ’ m e a n s t h e E n g l i s h ‘ c a l y x ’ . F o r c a l yx e s l o o k l i k e g r e e n
l e a v e s i n g e n e r a l , a n d t h o s e c a l yx e s w r a p y o u n g p e t a l s i n b u d . I t i s
important whether Aquila regarded the translated word kalu/kwsij as
a
blossoming
‘rose’
whose
calyx
still
has
not
opened.
This
interpretation would certainly contain the concept of ‘rosa’ clearly in
Latin.
82
83
T h e J e w i s h E n c y c l o p e d i a , v o l . 7 , 11 5 - 8 s . v. ‘ J e r o m e ’ .
H i e r o . C o m m . I s a . X , x x x v, 1 - 2 ( X , 1 6 ) .
Mizota 41
We s h o u l d n o t i c e t h a t , i n J e r o m e ’s t e x t , t h e f o l l o w i n g c l a u s e o f
the relative pronoun ‘quam’ has a lexicographical feature just like
g i v i n g a d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e w o r d ‘ k a l u / k w s i j ’ . T h a t i s t o s a y, i t i s
l i k e l y t h a t S t . J e r o m e r e f e r r e d t o s o m e l e x i c o n o r g l o s s a r y.
4 . 4 . S a i n t J e r o m e ’s A t t i t u d e t o A q u i l a ’s t r a n s l a t e d w o r d
S t . J e r o m e c l e a r l y h a d a h i g h o p i n i o n o f A q u i l a ’s d e f i n i t i o n i n
Commentariorum Isaiam. However it seems not to be denied that
Jerome thought that Aquila inclined toward et ymology too much.
A q u i l a ’s t r a n s l a t i o n c a n b e d a t e d t o a t i m e b e f o r e 1 7 7 A . D . b a s e d
o n A d v e r s u s H a e r e s e s ( A g a i n s t H e r e s i e s ) o f S t . I r e n a e u s o f Ly o n . 8 4
God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us,
g i v i n g u s t h e t o k e n o f t h e Vi r g i n . B u t n o t a s s o m e a l l e g e ,
among those now presuming to expound the Scripture,
[thus:] ‘Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring
forth a son,’as Theodotion the Ephesian has interpreted,
and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish prosel ytes. The Ebionites,
following these, assert that He was begotten by Joseph; thus
destro ying, as far as in them lies, such a marvelous
dispensation of God, and setting aside the testimony of the
prophets which proceeded from God.
84
85
85
T h e J e w i s h e n c y c l o p e d i a , v o l . 9 , 3 4 s . v. ‘ A q u i l a ’ .
Ir en ae us, Ad ver su s Ha eres es II I. 21.
Mizota 42
L i k e t h i s S t . I r e n a e u s ’ t e s t i m o n y, A q u i l a ’s t r a n s l a t i o n w a s g e n e r a l l y
underestimated b y Christian Fathers of those da ys. The reason comes
from the fact that Aquila tried to translate the Hebrew into Greek
equivalently as far as possible. However the equivalence aimed by
Aquila seems to be not only ‘word for word’ but also ‘original sense for
original sense’.
In this respect, St. Jerome himself says as follows.
H o w e v e r, w e r i g h t l y r e j e c t A q u i l a , a p r o s e l y t e a n d a
c o n t e n t i o u s t r a n s l a t o r [ i n t e r p re s ] , w h o a t t e m p t s t o t r a n s f e r
not just single words, but their et ymology. Who can accept
or comprehend for ‘corn and wine and oil’ his xeu=ma,
o ) p o r i s m o / n , s t i n o / t h t a o r, a s w e w o u l d s a y, ‘ p r o f u s i o n ,
fruitfulness, and brightness’? . . . For so much that is
beautifully expressed by the Greeks does not, if transferred
l i t e r a l l y, r e s o u n d i n L a t i n ; a n d c o n v e r s e l y, w h a t s o u n d s
p l e a s i n g t o u s , i f c o n v e r t e d b y s t r i c t w o r d o r d e r, w o u l d
d i s p l e a s e t h e m ! [ Tr a n s . K a t h l e e n D a v i s ] 8 6
St. Jerome clearl y referred to the original Hebrew text and the
Septuaginta, which had been an anonymous Greek translation since the
3rd Century BC. St. Jerome introduces the possibilit y of interpretation
that the Hebrew word habatseleth could mean ‘tumentem rosam’ as
A q u i l a ’s
86
interpretation.
Hiero. Pammachius XI.
H o w e v e r,
St.
Jerome
avoids
the
idea
of
Mizota 43
‘ t u m e n t e m r o s a m ’ i n t h e Vu l g a t e . B a s e d o n t h e S e p t u a g i n t , h e r e g a r d s
the hab atsel eth as ‘flos’ in C ant. 2 :1 and as ‘lilium’ in Is a. 35 :1.
Jerome may have rejected Aquilla for his tendency for excessive
et ymology for reasons best known to Christians.
As we have already discussed, it will be shown that this
d e f i n i t i o n o f k a l u / k w s i j i n S t . J e r o m e ’s C o m m e n t a r i o r u m I s a i a m h a s
a l e x i c o g r a p h i c a l f e a t u r e ( S e e 5 . 3 . ) . We h a v e t o i n q u i r e i n t o t h e l i n a g e
of Greek glossaries or lexicons.
Mizota 44
Chapter V
The R e-Ex a mina ti on of ka /l uc in the Linag e of Greek Lexi cons
5.1. Existence or Non-existence of the Concept of ‘Rose’
Perhaps researchers have a prejudice about the lexical meaning
g i v e n b y f a m o u s a n d i n f l u e n t i a l G r e e k d i c t i o n a r i e s . We m u s t d i s t r u s t
our own e yes. Therefore, let us reexamine the definition of the most
f a m o u s d i c t i o n a r y.
Ac cor di n g t o A G ree k- Engl i s h L e xi c o n whi ch w as com p i l ed b y
Liddell and Scott, the Greek word ka/luc is defined as ‘covering, used
only of flowers and fruits’. 87 Then the definition is subdivided as
follows.
1 . s e e d - v e s s e l , h u s k , s h e l l o r p o d , o f t h e w a t e r - l i l y.
2 . c u p o r c a l y x o f a f l o w e r. ( S e e F i g . 8 ) .
Fig. 8. The Item ka/luc in A Greek-English Lexicon88
A d d i t i o n a l l y, i n s e c t i o n 2 , t h e d i c t i o n a r y c i t e s a n e x a m p l e o f
87
88
A G re e k - E n g l i s h L e x i c o n 8 7 1 s . v. ‘ k a / l u c ’ .
A G re e k - E n g l i s h L e x i c o n 8 7 1 s . v. ‘ k a / l u c ’ .
Mizota 45
r(odou ka/luc written by Philosophus Theophrastus (370 B.C. - 285
B.C.), who was a philosopher stud ying with Aristotle. By Theophrastus,
the
plant
si/dh
indigenous
to
the
Orchomenos
region
in
his
peri¥ futw=n istori/a (Historia Plantarum: Enquiry into Plants) is
e x p l a i n e d a s f o l l o w.
a(dru/netai de¥ tou qe/rouj, mi/sxon de¥ e)/xei makro/n.
to¥
de¥
a)/nqoj
o(/moion
r(o/dou
ka/luki,
kai¥ sxedo¥n dipla/sion t%= mege/qei.
mei=zon
de/
89
It ripens in summer and has a long stalk. The flower is like
a r o s e - b u d , b u t l a r g e r, a l m o s t t w i c e a s l a r g e . [ t r a n s . A r t h u r
Hort]90
And, on the strength of the Theophrastus’ example, the dictionary
e x p l a i n s t h a t t h e G r e e k w o r d i s r e g a r d e d a s ro s e - b u d b y P o e t s , s u c h a s
H o m e r i c H y m n s t o D e m e t e r ( H y m n i H o m e r i c i : h y m n u s a d C e re re m . 4 2 7 ) ,
and Musa Puerilis 12:8 composed b y Strato of Lampsacus(340 B.C.-268
B . C . ) . H o w e v e r, i t i s t o b e n o t e d t h a t t h e s i n g l e w o r d k a / l u c d o e s n o t
contain the concept of rose. It has tremendous significance.
First, let us examine the appropriate portions of Homeric Hymns
to Demeter.
89
90
T h e o p h r. H P I V, x , 3 .
T h e o p h r. H P I V, x , 3 .
Mizota 46
mi/gda
kro/kon
t
)
a)gano/n
kai¥
a)galli/daj
h)d
)
u(akinqon kai¥ r(ode/aj ka/lukaj kai¥ lei/ria,91
a mixture of gentle saffron and iris and h yacinth and
rosebuds and lilies,92
O n t h i s t e s t i m o n y, J a m e s P. M a l l o r y n o t e s t h a t ‘ T h e r o s e i s c a l l e d
from ancient times r(ode/a ka/luc, ros y cup alread y in the H ymn to
D e m e t e r. ’ 9 3 H o w e v e r, w e c a n n o t s a y t h a t t h e w o r d k a / l u c h a s t h e
concept of ‘rose’. Because the word ka/lukaj is simply modified by
r(ode/aj, the very word ka/luc in this text does not have the meaning
o f r o s e a t a l l . We c a n q u e s t i o n M a l l o r y ’s i d e a t h a t ‘ I t w a s s o c o m m o n ,
that even ka/luc by itself was understood to mean rose’.
94
S e c o n d l y, l e t u s e x a m i n e t h e a p p r o p r i a t e p o r t i o n s o f M u s a
Puerilis b y Strato.
Ei=)don e)gw/ tina pai=da e)panqoplokou=nta ko/rumbon,
a)/rti parerxo/menos ta¥ stefanhlo/kia:
ou)d ) a)/trwta parh=lqon: e)pista¥j d ) h(/suxoj au)t%=
fhmi¥ ‘Po/sou pwlei=j to¥n so¥n e)moi ste/fanon;’
ma=llon tw=n kalu/kwn d ) e)ruqai/neto, kai¥ kataku/yaj
fhsi¥ ‘makra¥n xwrei, mh/ se path/r e)si/d$’ . . . .95
91
92
93
94
95
h . C e r. 4 2 5 .
h . C e r. 4 2 5 .
Hehn 475-6.
Hehn 475-6.
Musa Puerlis 8.
Mizota 47
J u s t n o w, a s I w a s p a s s i n g t h e p l a c e w h e r e t h e y m a k e
garlands, I saw a boy interweaving flowers with a bunch of
berries. Nor did I pass by unwounded, but standing by him I
s a i d q u i e t l y, ‘ F o r h o w m u c h w i l l y o u s e l l m e y o u r g a r l a n d ? ’
He grew redder than his roses, and turning down his head
s a i d , ‘ G o r i g h t a w a y i n c a s e m y f a t h e r s e e s y o u ’ . . . . [ Tr a n s .
W. R . P a t o n ] 9 6
I n t h i s t r a n s l a t i o n o f t h e L o e b e d i t i o n , W. R . P a t o n , t h e t r a n s l a t o r,
regards the word kalu/kwn as ‘of roses’. This definition by him is
doubtful. Ma ybe his reason for regarding this as rose is that the color of
ka/luc is red. However the red ka/luc does not automatically mean a
rose. Perhaps the red ka/luc means other kinds of flowers. Especially
in the poem of this text, a boy of lead character was interweaving
something regarded as ‘flowers with a bunch of berries (ko/rumboj)’ by
W. R . P a t o n . F r o m t h e c o n t e x t , t h e k a / l u c i n t h i s p o e m h a s c l e a r l y
something to do with the flowers being compared to the ‘red’ face of a
b o y.
Pierre
Chantraine
et ymologicall y
regards
ko/rumboj
as
‘ u m b e l l i f o r m ’ . 9 7 We c a n n o t d i r e c t l y r e g a r d t h e k a / l u c a s r o s e .
Therefore it is not entirely fair to say that this Greek Lexicon
e x p l a i n s t h a t t h e G r e e k w o r d k a / l u c i s r e g a r d e d a s ro s e - b u d i n P o e t s .
Of course, research has shown that there is traditionally some
96
97
Musa Puerlis 8.
C h a n t r a i n e , v o l . 1 - 2 . 5 6 9 s . v. ‘ k o / r u m b o j ’ .
Mizota 48
sort of faint linkage between ka/luc and r(o/don. However the linkage
is not so much strong as ‘classicism’. Perhaps the r(o/don is a
representative plant expressed as ka/luc in Classical Greek because
the expression of r(odou ka/luc, as previousl y mentioned, is survived
in some Greek texts such as Historia Plantarum and Homeric Hymns to
Demeter. Therefore the expression might be used as a lexical example.
We h a v e t o i n q u i r e i n t o t h e l i n a g e o f a n c i e n t G r e e k L e x i c o n s
about the definition ka/luc.
5.2. Th e definiti o n of the La tin ‘cal yx’ as a loanw o rd fro m Greek
I t w o u l d a p p e a r t h a t t h e e x a m i n a t i o n a b o u t t h e L a t i n ‘ c a l yx ’ a s a
loanword from Greek serves as corroborative evidence.
Pliny the Elder (Gaius Plinius Secundus: 23 A.D.-79 A.D.) The
N a t u r a l i s H i s t o r i a o f h i s w o r k c o n t a i n s t h e w o r d ‘ c a l yx ’ i n L a t i n .
A c c o r d i n g t o A L a t i n D i c t i o n a r y, L e w i s a n d S h o r t c i t e a f e w e x a m p l e s
o f t h e L a t i n ‘ c a l yx ’ i n P l i n y. We c a n f i n d t h a t P l i n y r e g a r d s t h e w o r d
‘ c a l yx ’ a s f o l l o w s ( a d l i b i t u m n u m b e r i n g ) .
98
(1)
T h e b u d , c u p , o r c a l yx o f a f l o w e r.
(2)
The shell of fruits.
(3)
An egg-shell.
(4)
The covering of shell-fish, etc., the shell.
(5)
A covering of wax around fruit to preserve it.98
L e w i s 2 7 4 . s . v. ’ c a l yx ’ .
Mizota 49
L e t u s v a l i d a t e s o m e o f h i s t e r m s . To b e g i n w i t h , w e p u t s o m e
thought into the definition of an egg-shell.
defigi quidem diris deprecationibus nemo non metuit. hoc
pertinet
ovorum
coclearumque
quae
protinus
exobuerit
frangi
aut
quisque
isdem
calices
coclearibus
perforari.99
There is indeed nobody who does not fear to be spell-bound
by imprecations. A similar feeling makes ever ybod y break
the shells of eggs or snails immediately after eating them,
or else pierce them with the spoon that they have used.
[ Tr a n s . W. H . S . J o n e s ] 1 0 0
H e r e , t h e w o r d ‘ c a l yx ’ i s c l e a r l y c o n s i d e r e d w i t h i n t h e c o n t e x t o f
‘the shells of eggs or snails’. In this context, the ‘cal yx’ never contains
the concept of ‘rose’.
Next we put some thought into the definition of the shell of
sea-creatures.
Ex eodem genere sunt echni quibus spinae pro pedibus.
ingredi est his in orbem volvi, itaque detritis saepe aculeis
i n v e n i u n t u r. e x h i s e c h i n o m e t r a e a p p e l l a n t u r q u o r u m s p i n a e
99
100
P l i n . H i s t . N . X X V I I I , i v, 1 9 .
P l i n . H i s t . N . X X V I I I , i v, 1 9 .
Mizota 50
longissimae, cal yc es minimi. 101
The sea-urchin, which has spines instead of feet belongs to
the same genus. These creatures can only go forward by
r o l l i n g o v e r a n d o v e r, a n d c o n s e q u e n t l y t h e y a r e o f t e n
found with their prickles worn off. Those of them with the
longest spines are called cups.[trans. H. Rackham]102
We m a k e t w o p o i n t s . F i r s t , t h e w o r d ‘ c a l y x ’ i n t h i s t e s t i m o n y i s
clearly about the figuration of the sea-urchin. Although there is some
q u e s t i o n a s t o t h e t r a n s l a t i o n o f ‘ c u p ’ b y W. H . S . J o n e s , i t i s l e s s o f a
p r o b l e m n o w. S e c o n d l y, t h e w o r d ‘ c a l y x ’ d o e s n o t h a v e t h e c o n c e p t o f
‘rose’ at all.
5.3. Problems of the Item ka/luc in Hesychius’ Lexicon
I n t h e 5 t h C e n t u r y, H e s y c h i u s o f A l e x a n d r i a , a g r a m m a r i a n o f
Alexandria, compiled the first large and comprehensive Greek lexicon
for that time. His lexicon, entitled Synagōgē pasōn lexecōn kata
s t o i c h e i o n ( A l p h a b e t i c a l C o l l e c t i o n o f A l l Wo r d s ) , b e c a m e a m o d e l o f
s u b s e q u e n t l e x i c o n s . H o w e v e r, t h e r e i s o n l y o n e m a n u s c r i p t i n t h e 1 5 t h
Century left for us.103
The lexicon of Hesychius contains the item ‘ka/luc’. Nowada ys,
101
Plin. Hist. N. IX, li, 100.
Plin. Hist. N. IX, li, 100.
103
T h e N e w E n c y c l o p æ d i a B r i t a n n i c a , v o l . 5 , 9 0 1 . s . v. ‘ H e s y c h i u s O F
A L E X A N D R I A’ .
102
Mizota 51
some editions of Hes ychius’ lexicon have been published. Among them,
it would seem that the edition of Kurt Latte is the best critical one. The
edition of Latte incorporates detailed narratives against each item with
some
marks
and
abbreviations,
in
order
to
illustrate
supposed
relationships with other lexicons referred to b y Hes ychius.
H e s y c h i u s h i m s e l f s a y s t h a t h e e n l a r g e d D i o g e n i a n ’s l e x i c o n w i t h
Aristarchus, Apion, and Heliodorus.104 If that helps, Hesychius does
not leave a clear trail of the word in the lexicon of Diogenian.105 About
t h e s e r e f e r e n c e r e l a t i o n s h i p s , K u r t L a t t e ’s f u l l i n v e s t i g a t i o n t h r o u g h
all items provides an authoritative anal ysis.
*to¥
ka/luc:
to¥
mh¥
kai¥
to¥
a)/nqoj
e)kpetasqe¥n
e)nw/tion.
ploka/mouj
kai¥
tou=
a)/nqoj.
h(
perie/xousa
r(o/dou
Sgn.
ASg,
h(
xrush=
su=rigc
(S401).
e)/noi
nu/mfh.
h(
tou¥j
e)/mbrua
a)podido/asi ka/lukaj, oi( de¥ blasth/mata. shmai/nei
de/ kai¥ th¥n qalassi/an porfu/ran.106
ka/luc:
*The
flower of the rose ASg, the not-opened
f l o w e r, t h e b r i d e . S g n . T h e e a r - r i n g . A n d t h e g o l d e n p i p e
104
Llo yd-Jones 50-51.
105
Z e n o b i u s , D i o g e n i a n u s , P l u t a rc h u s , G r e g o r i u s C y p r i u s c u m
a p p e n d i c e p ro v e r b i o r u m E d . E . L . L e u t s c h a n d F. G. S c h n e i d e w i n .
paperbacks vol. 21 (Hildesheim: Georg. Olms, 1965).
106
H e s y c h i i A l e x a n d r i n i L e x i c o n , v o l . 2 . 4 0 4 s . v. ‘ k a / l u c ’ .
Mizota 52
which binds the curling-hair (S401). Some people render
embr yos into ka/luc, on the other hand, the other people
render [them] into blasth/ma. In addition, [the y] indicate
t h e s e a - s n a i l . [ Tr a n s . M i z o t a ]
Latte marks the text with asterisk (*) in this ka/luc item.
Latte uses the mark as in the sense that this definition is written in
t e x t s o f C y r i l ’s L e x i c o n . M o r e o v e r L a t t e a n n o t a t e s t h i s i t e m a s ‘ K +
Hom.’ on a margin. According to him, it means ‘glossa C yrilliana’
( C y r i l ’s l e x i c o n ) a n d ‘ H o m e r i s c h o l i a v u l g a t a e t p a r a p h r a s i s ’ ( H o m e r ’s
general ‘scholia’ and interpretation).107
5 . 4 . I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f k a / l u c w i t h r ( o / d o n i n C y r i l ’s L e x i c o n
In contrast to Hes ychius, man y manuscripts of a lexicon named
after St. C yril of Alexandria (378-444) have survived all over Europe.
According to Henry Stuart Jones (1867-1939) who was also an editor of
t he f am ous A Gree k -Engl i sh L e xi co n, t he ori gi nal t ex t d at es ba ck t o t h e
earl y 5th Centur y of the same era with C yril, though whether the
lexicon derives from C yril himself remained an open question, 108
I c a n n o t r e f e r t o t h e b e s t e d i t i o n o f C y r i l ’s l e x i c o n b y A n d e r s
Bjørn Drachmann (1860-1935), because it is not in the possession of
Japanese libraries (Die Überlieferung des Cyrillglossars, Copenhagen:
1936) . I c an re fe r t o onl y an edi t i o n o f Ma nus cri pt E ( C o dex Brem ensi s
107
108
Index Compendiorum. Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon, vol.1. LII.
Jones 3-4.
Mizota 53
G 11 ) b y U r s u l a H a g e d o r n o n t h e p u b l i c a t i o n s e r v e r o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f
Cologne as of Oct. 2007. According to Hagedorn, Manuscript E is one
o f t h e o l d e s t m a n u s c r i p t s a n d d a t e s b a c k t o t h e 9 - 1 0 t h C e n t u r y. 1 0 9
The item ka/luc in Manuscript E is described as follows.
K71
ka/luc : a)/nqoj r(o/dou mh/pw a)noixqe/n110
K71
ka/luc : A flower of rose not-having opened yet.
[ Tr a n s . M i z o t a ]
M o r e o v e r, a l e x i c o n o f J o a n n e s Z o n a r a s , a t h e o l o g i a n i n t h e 1 2 t h
C e n t u r y, u s e d e x a c t l y t h e s a m e a s t h e d e f i n i t i o n u s e d b y M a n u s c r i p t E
o f C y r i l ’s l e x i c o n t h o u g h J o h a n n e s Ti t t m a n n w h o i s t h e e d i t o r s a y s t h a t
h i s o w n C y r i l ’s e d i t i o n d o e s n o t i n c l u d e t h e e n t r y ‘ k a / l u c ’ ( S e e F i g . 9 . ) .
It is likely that Zonaras’ lexicon was a scion of the same family with
M a n u s c r i p t E o f C y r i l ’s l e x i c o n .
We c a n n o t i g n o r e t h e s i m i l a r i t y i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n b e t w e e n S t
J e r o m e ’s C o m m e n t a r i o r u m I s a i a m a n d t h i s C y r i l ’s l e x i c o n . H e r e w e
should
recall
St.
J e r o m e ’s
definition
of
the
derivative
word
kalu/kwsij of ka/luc. As I have alread y stated, St. Jerome identifi ed
the word kalu/kwsij of ka/luc as ‘a blossoming rose with still not
openi n g foli um’. Moreov er it was o bserved th at th e s u ffix -sij forms
verbal nouns having ‘an action, process or result’ specified by the
109
110
H a g e d o r n ‘ D i e H a n d s c h r i f t e ( C o d e x B r e m e n s i s G 11 ) ’
H a g e d o r n 1 6 7 s . v. k 7 1 k a / l u c .
Mizota 54
combining root.
F i g . 9 . Zo n a ra s ’ D ef i n i t i o n a n d Tit t ma n n ’s N o t e s
111
5 . 5 . O r i g i n o f t h e s i m i l a r i t y b e t w e e n St J e r o m e a n d C y r i l ’s l e x i c o n
As we have already discussed, it will be shown that this
d e f i n i t i o n o f k a l u / k w s i j i n S t . J e r o m e ’s C o m m e n t a r i o r u m I s a i a m h a s
a
lexicographical
feature
(See.
5.3.).
St.
Jerome
refers
to
the
Commentariorum Isaiam of Eusebius of Caesarea (275-339) in order to
write
his
Commentariorum
Isaiam.
112
However
Eusebius
regards
habatseleth as krinon. Because, he interprets the word habatseleth
based
on
the
Septuaginta.
Eusebius’ interpretation
of
the
word
habatseleth of Isa 35:1 is as follows:
verum memoratis de causis laetari et exsultare, itemque
sicut lilium [krinon] florere jubetur;113
111
112
113
I o h a n n i s Z o n a r a e L e x i c o n 11 5 0 . s . v. ‘ k a / l u c ’ .
Russell 70-1.
E u s e b . C o m . I s a . X X X V. 1 .
Mizota 55
truly by mean of the stated causes for rejoicing and
exaltation, and also as if in order for a lily [krinon] to
f l o u r i s h ; [ Tr a n s . M i z o t a ]
Norman Russell argues in detail that C yril emplo yed translators
because he could not understand Latin, based on testimonies such as a
l e t t e r i n 4 3 0 f r o m C y r i l t o P o p e C e l e t i n e . A d d i t i o n a l l y, R u s s e l l i n s i s t s
that
C yril
particularly
directly
with
refers
regard
to
to
J e r o m e ’s
linguistic
Commentariorum
knowledge
and
Isaiam,
Jewish
interpretation.114
A l t h o u g h J e r o m e ’s C o m m e n t a r i o r u m I s a i a m m i g h t h a v e h a d a n
i n f l u e n c e C y r i l h i m s e l f o r h i s c o l l e a g u e s w h o c o m p i l e d C y r i l ’s l e x i c o n ,
there are some questions that most of the terms in the Commentariorum
I s a i a m a r e n o t i t e m s f o u n d i n C y r i l ’s l e x i c o n . A l l i n a l l , i t s e e m s
reasonable to suppose that St. Jerome and St. C yril (or his colleagues)
referred to some common materials.
As for the reasons for commingling of the concept of ‘rose’ with
the definition of ka/luc in the Greek lexika, we can assume a mistake
of ‘annotation’ for ‘definition’. In the Homeri Scholia referred by the
editors of the Hesychius’ lexicon (see 5.3), we can find the expression
of ‘ka/lukaj: e)mferh= r(o/doij.
(buds: like roses)’.115
The account is not a ‘definition’ but rather an ‘annotation’ for
r e a d i n g a s p e c i f i c t e x t o f t h e I l i a d b y H o m e r. T h e a p p r o p r i a t e v e r s e s i n
114
115
Russell 70-1.
Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iriadem S 401b.
Mizota 56
the Iliad are as follows:
t$=si par ) ei)na/etej xa/lkeuon dai/dala polla,
po/rpaj te gnampta/j q )e( /likaj ka/luka/j te kai¥ o(/rmouj
e)n sph=i grafur%=. peri¥ de¥ r(o/oj
)Wkeanoi=o
a)fr%= mormu/rwn r(e/en a)/spetoj.116
Wi t h t h e m t h e n f o r n i n e y e a r s I f o r g e d m u c h c u n n i n g h a n d i w o r k ,
brooches, and spiral armbands, and rosettes and necklaces,
inside their hollow cave; and round about me flowed [sic.] the
stream of Oceanus, seething with foam, a flood unspeakable.
[ Tr a n s . A . T. M u r r a y] 1 1 7
M u r r a y ’s
interpretation
on
the
Greek
ka/luka/j
is
very
questionable. It is better that the original ka/luka/j should be simply
regarded as ‘buds’. It is just conceivable that the concept gradually
shifted from ‘annotation’ to ‘definition’ in the history of compiling
lexika.
116
117
H o m e r. I l , X V I I I . 4 0 0 - 3 .
H o m e r. I l , X V I I I . 4 0 0 - 3 .
Mizota 57
Chapter VI
The meaning of habatseleth and The Septuagint
6.1. Th e fea tu re o f the Septua gint
The Septuagint is the most famous version in the Koine of ancient
G r e e k a n d t h e o l d e s t t r a n s l a t i o n o f t h e O l d Te s t a m e n t . A n y t r a n s l a t o r
gives priority consideration for the Septuagint.
These da ys, many scholars
question whether all
documents
assembled as the Septuagint was translated b y ‘sevent y-two scholars’ of
legend. Hengel says that we can only infer the formation process of
each translation from slight surviving testimonies.
118
Hengel insists
that Isaiah was translated in the middle of the second Century B.C. for
reasons such as reflecting situations in the Ptolemaic d ynast y in
Is.19:18-21.
119
Meanwhile,
Hengel
supposes
that
Canticles
was
t r a n s l a t e d m u c h l a t e r, t h a t i s t o s a y, i n a r o u n d t h e s a m e p e r i o d t h a t 2
Esdras was translated in the ‘Koine’.120 Dorival, Harl and Munnich
insist that Isaiah was translated between 170 and 132 B.C. And they
think that the translation of Canticles was done by the ‘Kaige Group’ in
t h e f o r m e r p a r t o f t h e f i r s t C e n t u r y A . D . 1 2 1 ( S e e Ta b l e 3 ) I n a n y c a s e ,
I s a i a h ’s t r a n s l a t i o n p r e c e d e s C a n t i c l e ’s t r a n s l a t i o n .
Therefore, if we reexamine how translators of the Septuagint
interpreted the meaning of habatseleth, the first thing to do is the
118
119
120
121
Hengel 100.
Hengel 102.
Hengel 102.
Dorival, Harl, and Munnich 96-8.
Mizota 58
investigation of habatseleth in Isa. 35:1.
Ta b l e 3 . T h e D a t e o f t h e S e p t u a g i n t
(Dorival, Harl and Munnich: 1988)122
In the Septuagint, the translators of Isaiah regarded the Hebrew
habatseleth as a)¥nqoj which merely mean ‘flower ’. Isa. 35:1b, the
translators of the Septuagint translate it as follows.
122
D o r i v a l , H a r l , a n d M u n n i c h 111 .
Mizota 59
(BHS: 1977/Heb.)
ve-tipherath ka-habatsaleth.
(LXX/ Gk.)
kai¥ a)nqei/tw w(j kri/non
(AV : 1611/ Eng.)
and blossome as the rose.
First, we must research the way of using tipherath (KAL. fut. fem. 3
pres. sg.) which governs the habatseleth in Isa. 35:1 in order to define
the meaning of the habatseleth.
6.2. The Government by the Hebrew pharath in Isa. 35:1
The infinitive form of the verb tipherath is pharath. Gesenius
i nsi st ed t h at t hi s p harat h c an b e re ga rde d as ‘t o brea k o ut o r f o rt h’ i n
r e l a t i o n t o t h e A r a b i a n r o o t ‫خ‬fQQQQQQQg ( f - r - x ) w i t h t h e i m a g e ‘ f r o m t h e
womb’.
123
H a n s We h r r e g a r d s t h e w o r d ‫خ‬fQQQQQQQg a s t h e f o l l o w i n g m e a n i n g
in his modern Arabic dictionary as follows:
(1) ‘to have young ones (bird)’,
(2) ‘to hatch (said of eggs)’
(3) ‘to hatch, incubate, to germinate, sprout, put out new
shoots (of a tree)’
(4)’to spread, gain grou nd’. 124
I n a d d i t i o n , H a n s We h r e x p l a i n s t h a t a m o d e r n d e r i v a t i v e w o r d
123
124
G e s e n i u s 8 6 6 . s . v. ‘ p h a r a t ’ .
We h r 8 2 3 . s . v. ‘ ‫خ‬fQQQQQQQg ’ .
Mizota 60
w i t h a m e a n i n g ‘ i n c u b a t o r ’ s t e m s f r o m t h i s r o o t ‫خ‬fQQQQQQQg.
125
In oth er
words, the original image of ‘shooting’ of Semitic root ph-r-h (or f-r-x)
s u r v i v e s i n M o d e r n A r a b i c t o t h i s d a y.
Actually Genesis provides an appropriate example for regarding
the word pharath as the meaning of ‘to bud’
or ‘(a bud) to be
shooting’:
And in the vine were three branches: and it was as though it
budded [inf. pharath], and her blossoms shot forth [inf.
alah]; and the clusters thereof brought forth [inf. bashal]
r i p e g r a p e s : [ t h e A . V. : G e n . 4 0 : 1 0 ]
It is likely that the verb pharath originally means ‘to have the
potential to become something’ as if ‘the egg hatches’ or ‘to bud’.
6.3. The ‘Collocation’ Formed by the pharath and the habatsaleth
In addition, when discussing the meaning of ka-habatsaleth in
Isa.35:1, it must be noted that the verb pharath has a tendency to be
o f t e n c o m b i n e d w i t h t h e p r e p o s i t i o n K a f ( ‫ ) ּכ‬. A c c o r d i n g t o G e s e n i u s ,
the preposition Kaf has the meaning such as ‘as’, ‘like’, and ‘as if ’.126
We s h o u l d n o t o v e r l o o k ‘ c o l l o c a t i o n ’ . M . J o o s e x p l a i n s t h e c o n c e p t o f
‘collocation’ as
125
126
‘a
word-combination
We h r 8 2 3 . s . v. ‘ ‫خ‬fQQQQQQQg ’ .
G e s e n i u s 4 3 9 - 2 . s . v. ‘ C a p h ’ .
which
throws
light
on
the
Mizota 61
meanings of the words invoved’.127
We s h o u l d a n a l y z e t h e c o m m o n n a t u r e o f t h i s o b j e c t s c o m p a r e d
by pharath with Kaf. Therefore, we miss the point if we regard the word
pharath merely as well-known meanings such as ‘to flourish’.
T h e v e r b p h a r a t h a p p e a r s 3 8 t i m e s i n t h e O l d Te s t a m e n t . F i v e o f
them co-occur with the preposition Kaf as follows:
When the wicked spring as the grass (eseb), [Ps. 92:7]
The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree (tamar): he
shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon. [Ps. 92:12]
and blossom as (th e ros e ? ) (habat sel eth). [ Is. 35:1]
and your bones shall flourish like an herb(deshe) [ Is. 66:14]
He that trusteth in his riches shall fall; but the righteous
s h a l l f l o u r i s h a s a b r a n c h ( a l e h ) . [ P r o v. 11 : 2 8 ]
Reflection on some of these will make clear that these pharath
(except the ‘rose’) have something in common, especially in the
meaning. Each Hebrew word is explained in Gesenius’ dictionary as
f o l l o w s . A c c o r d i n g l y, s o m e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e v e r b p h a r a t h a n d
K a f c a n b e c o n s i d e r e d f r o m t h e c o l l o c a t i o n a l p o i n t o f v i e w.
127
Ya s u i 11 9 - 2 7 .
Mizota 62
e s e b : g re e n h e r b , p l a n t , c o l l e c t . g r e e n h e r b s , g r o w i n g i n t h e
field,128
tamar: a palm-tree, phœnix, dact ylifera, date-palm, a tree alwa ys
g r e e n , t a l l , a n d s l e n d e r, 1 2 9
deshe: the first shoots from the earth, tender grass, young
herbage,130
aleh:
A
leaf,
green
and
flourishing,
is
the
emblem
of
p r o s p e r i t y, 1 3 1
It is determined that one common feature of words governed by
the preposition Kaf along with the verb pharath is that it is fresh, green,
and in the process of growing. Therefore, we can formulate this
c o l l o c a t i o n a s [ ( K a f ( ‫ ) ּכ‬+ s o m e t h i n g w h i c h i s f r e s h , g r e e n , a n d i n t h e
p r o c e s s o f g r o w i n g ) + p h a r a t h ] . S i m i l a r l y, t h e w o r d h a b a t s e l e t h i n I s .
35:1 also seems to be ‘something which is fresh, green, and in the
process of growing’.
6.4. The Septuagint and the Original meaning of the habatseleth
Meanwhile, we are unable to disregard the succinct conclusion
that the guttural h- is prefixed to betsel by Benjamin Davidson (See.
1.5.). If we eliminate the preconception that the habatseleth is a kind of
128
129
130
131
Gesenius
Gesenius
Gesenius
Gesenius
8 2 0 . s . v. e s e b
11 3 7 . s . v. t a m a r
2 3 7 . s . v. d e s h e
7 8 5 . s . v. a l e h
Mizota 63
f l o w e r, D a v i d s o n ’s t h e o r y i s u n d e r s t a n d a b l e .
In addition, given the fact noted in 6.3, it is highly possible that
the habatseleth has the meaning of ‘something which is fresh, green,
and in the process of growing’.
A s i t i s n o w, w e c a n n o t a c c u r a t e l y d e f i n e t h e o r i g i n a l m e a n i n g o f
t h e H e b r e w h a b a t s e l e t h r e g a r d e d a s ‘ r o s e ’ i n A . V.
H o w e v e r, w i t h a l l
things considered, it is considered reasonable and proper that the
Hebrew habatseleth means ‘a shooting bulb’.
It is likely that the translators of the Septuagint have some
et ymological consciousness about the Hebrew habatseleth. Therefore,
the y seem to directly translate the Hebrew habatseleth as kri/non ‘lil y’,
and then to translate the Hebrew pharath as the Greek verb a)nqe/w ‘to
b l o s s o m ’ . Tr a n s l a t i o n s u c h a s t h i s i s p r e s u m a b l y i n t e n d e d t o r e g a r d t h e
kri/non as the representative of bulbous plants. The fact that there is
not the word bolbo/j ‘bulb’ in the Septuagint supports this assumption.
(BHS: 1977/Heb.)
ve-tipherath ka-habatsaleth.
(LXX/ Gk.)
kai¥ a)nqei/tw w(j kri/non
T h a t i s t o s a y, t h e t r a n s l a t o r s r e g a r d t h e p h r a s e a s e q u i v a l e n t i n
w h o l e . We c a n t a k e t h i s I s a i a h ’s p h r a s e a s a s t a r t i n g p o i n t t h a t t h e
h a b a t s e l e t h i s r e g a r d e d a s a f l o w e r.
It should be appreciated that the deverbal noun of the a)nqe/w is
the very a)¥nqoj. Perhaps the translators of Canticles which was
subsequently translated were conscious of the translated phrase in Isa.
Mizota 64
3 5 : 1 b . M o r e o v e r, t h e y s e e m t o h a v e h a d t o a c c e p t t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f
s h o s h a n a h i n l a t t e r h a l f o f t h e v e r s e w i t h k r i / n o n p r e c e d i n g C a n t i c l e ’s
translation (i.e. 2Ch. 4:5, Hos. 14:6).
’ a ni habat s el et h has haron,
(BHS: 1977/Heb.)
shoshanah ha’amaqim:
)Egw¥ a)¥nqoj tou= pedi/ou, kri/non tw=n koila/dwn.
(LXX/ Gk.)
We c a n n o t k n o w w h e t h e r t h e t r a n s l a t o r s o f C a n t i c l e s h a v e s o m e
et ymological consciousness about the Hebrew habatseleth. Even if the y
had some et ymological consciousness, it is more than probable that
they gave priority to regarding shoshanah as traditionally-based kri/non,
and to leaving the image of ‘to have the potential to become something’
in the habatseleth on the a)¥nqoj as the deverbal noun of the a)nqe/w.
Therefore, the original meaning is thought of as follows.
[ {( ’ ani ) ( habat s el et h) ( has haron)}, ( s hos hanah) ( ha’ amaqi m) ]
A
B
C
D
E
[{(I am ) (a shooting b ulb) (of t he fiel d)}, (a lil y) (of the vall e ys)]
A’
B’
C’
D’
E’
Mizota 65
Conclusion
Based on these research results, let us reconstruct the supposed
p r o c e s s f r o m t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h i s p r o b l e m t o t h e A . V. f o r a l l o f t h e s e
anal yses.
P r o b a b l y, t h e H e b r e w h a b a t s e l e t h w h i c h i s i n t e r p r e t e d a s ‘ r o s e ’
i n A . V. m e a n s ‘ a s h o o t i n g b u l b ’ . T h e r e a s o n c o m e s f r o m t h e f a c t s t h a t
the word has the root which means ‘bulb’ by the theory of Benjamin
D a v i d s o n a n d i s i n t h e c o l l o c a t i o n o f [ ( K a f ( ‫ ) ּכ‬+ s o m e t h i n g w h i c h i s
fresh, green, and in the process of growing) + pharath] in Isa. 35:1. The
original writer of Isaiah used the word habatseleth by way of ‘a
shooting bulb’ with the potential to green the wilderness, the solitary
place, and the desert (cf. 35:1). And, the original writer of Canticles
used the word by way of budding not artificial but natural love (cf. 2:7)
a n d o f ‘ a s h o o t i n g b u l b ’ o f l i l y l o n g i n g f o r s p r i n g ( c f . 2 : 11 - 2 ) .
T h e f i r s t t u r n i n g p o i n t i s t h a t t h e ve-tipherath ka-habatsaleth ( a n d
will bud like a shooting bulb) of Isa. 35:1 was translated into
kai¥ a)nqei/tw w(j kri/non (and will flourish like a lil y) in the
Septuagint. This allowed the translators of Canticles translated later to
translate the word habatseleth as a)¥nqoj ‘flower ’ of the deverbal noun
of the a)nqe/w. As a result, in the Septuagint, the word habatseleth was
translated both as kri/non in Isaiah and as a)¥nqoj in Canticles. Based
on these interpretations in the Septuagint, subsequent scholars have a
t e n d e n c y t o r e g a r d t h e h a b a t s e l e t h a s a k i n d o f f l o w e r.
Mizota 66
In
the
second
C e n t u r y,
Aquila
of
Sinope
et ymologicall y
translated the Hebrew habatseleth into kalu/kwsij. It would appear
that Aquila coined the word from ka/luc and –wsij as a ‘nonce word’
f o r h i s t r a n s l a t i o n . O r i g i n a l l y, t h e w o r d k a / l u c i s a d e r i v a t i o n o f t h e
verb kalu/ptein (to cover) and means ‘a covering of something’, and
the suffix –wsij had a meaning of ‘an action, process or result’.
Aquila might intend to use the nonce word kalu/kwsij in the sense of
‘something which is just about shooting’ (i.e. an opening bud, a
shooting bulb, &c.).
Meanwhile,
in
Greek
classics,
the
kind
of
rose
was
a
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e f l o w e r. T h e r e f o r e , t h e e x p r e s s i o n s w i t h s o m e
relationship between ‘rose’ and ‘bud’ were used in a number of Greek
classics. (For example, r(o/dou ka/luc (rose bud) in Theophrastus’
H i s t o r i a P l a n t a r u m I V, x , 3 ) . I t i s s u p p o s e d t h a t t h e r e p e a t e d u s e o f t h e
expression in Greek classics induced some of the Greek lexicons or
glossaries to regard the Greek ka/luc as ‘a rose bud’. The Glossa
Cyrilliana from as far back as the early 5th Century of the same era
with St. C yril regards ka/luc as a)/nqoj r(o/dou mh/pw a)noixe/n (A
flower of rose not-having opened yet).
It seems reasonable to suppose that the identification of ka/luc
with ‘rose’ in the linage of Greek lexicons changed the understanding
o f t h e c o n c e p t o f k a l u / k w s i j i n A q u i l a ’s v e r s i o n . S t J e r o m e i n t e r p r e t s
t h e w o r d k a l u / k w s i j i n A q u i l a ’s v e r s i o n a s m e a n i n g o f ‘ t u m e n t e m
rosam et necdum folis dilatatis’ (a blossoming rose with still not
opening folium.) in his Commentariorum Isaiam. It is likely that the
Mizota 67
l i k e n e s s i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n b e t w e e n S t . J e r o m e ’s C o m m e n t a r i o r u m I s a i a m
a n d t h i s C y r i l ’s l e x i c o n i s d e r i v e d f r o m s o m e c o m m o n m a t e r i a l . G i v e n
that the common material was some glossary or lexicon, we can explain
the similarities.
It can be easily imagined that the identification of ka/luc with
‘rose’ in glossaries immediately caused the identification of the
o r i g i n a l H e b r e w h a b a t s e l e t h w i t h ‘ r o s e ’ . F u r t h e r m o r e , i n t h e Ta rg u m
Canticles translated in Aramaic, the Hebrew shoshanah was identified
w i t h w a rd a c o g n a t e w i t h I n d o - E u r o p e a n ‘ r o s e ’ . I t i s j u s t c o n c e i v a b l e
t h a t t h e Ta r g u m t r a n s l a t o r d e d u c e d t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n f r o m ‘ p a r a l l e l i s m ’
between habatseleth and shoshanah in Cant. 2:1. The identification of
the shoshanah with rose naturally cause the translator to change the
concept of ‘lil y’ into ‘rose’ in the phrase ‘As the shoshanah among
thorns’ of Cant.2:2.
I t i s l i k e l y t h a t J o h a n n e s R e u c h l i n r e f e r r e d t o e i t h e r S t . J e r o m e ’s
C o m m e n t a r i o r u m I s a i a m o r t h e Ta rg u m C a n t i c l e s i n t h e 1 6 t h C e n t u r y.
In De Rudimentis Hebraicis, Reuchlin interpreted the word habatseleth
a s r o s e i n C a n t . 2 : 1 ( 1 5 0 6 ) . H o w e v e r, R e u c h l i n u s e d t h e e x p r e s s i o n ‘ l i k e
r o s e s a m o n g t h o r n s ’ f r o m C a n t . 2 : 2 i n h i s w o r k ( 1 5 1 0 ) . L a t e r, M a r t i n
Luther translated shoshanah into rose (1524/45). Although Martin
L u t h e r g o t R e u c h l i n ’s D e R u d i m e n t i s h e b r a i c i s i n 1 5 0 9 , i t d i d n o t
influence his translation. Because he regarded shoshanah as rose in his
l e t t e r ( 1 5 1 6 ) , i t i s b e l i e v e d t h a t R e u c h l i n ’s w o r k i n f l u e n c e d L u t h e r ’s
interpretation. In 1528, Sanctes Pagninus translated Cant.2:1 into ‘Ego
rosa campi, & lilium cōvallium’. Under the influence of Pagninus,
Mizota 68
Bertram
(1587/8),
habatseleth
Cipriano(1602)
h a s h a ro n
into
‘rose
and
of
Diodati(1607)
Sharon’.
After
translated
1604
when
t r a n s l a t i o n o f t h e A . V. b e g a n , t h e t r a n s l a t o r s r e f e r r e d a n d c o n f o r m e d t o
these versions.
In this research, we could not refer to some versions, especially it
is only regrettable that the Biblia Polyglotta (Antwerp Polyglot Bible)
c o m p i l e d i n 1 5 7 2 . A d d i t i o n a l l y, w e a r e f o r c e d t o l e a v e o f f t h e p r o b l e m
of relationship between ‘rose of Sharon’ in Cant. 2:1 and ‘lily of the
field’ of Solomon in Mt. 6:28. If we deal with the problem, we must
touch upon the trick y question of the h ypothetical ‘Q document’.
Although to look at the Q from a viewpoint of linage of Biblical
translation is a very interesting question, it was too involved a subject
to be treated here.
Let us take these into future consideration.
Mizota 69
Bibliography
I . B i b l i c a l Ve r s i o n s
A l e x a n d e r, P h i l i p S . t r a n s . a n d e d . T h e Ta rg u m o f C a n t i c l e s . T h e
Aramaic Bible vol. 17A. Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 2002.
A . V. [ a b b r. ] :
T h e H o l y B i b l e : A n E x a c t R e p r i n t i n R o m a n Ty p e ,
P a g e f o r P a g e o f t h e A u t h o r i z e d Ve r s i o n P u b l i s h e d i n t h e Ye a r
1 6 11 . [ F a c s i m . R e p r. ] To k y o : K e n k y u s h a : 1 9 8 5 . [ O r i g i n a l E d . :
O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s : 1 9 11 ] .
B i b l i a H e b r a i c a St u t t g a r t e n s i a , E d . R u d o l f K i t t e l e t
B H S [ a b b r. ] :
al. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1977.
La Bible: Qui
est toute la saincte. 1588. [Original] Amsteldam
[sic.],1635. [Kathleen M. Davidson, ‘Subject: 1635 French Bible,
printed by Henri Laurents, Amsterdam. This French Bible is the
F r e n c h G e n e v a Ve r s i o n , w h i c h f i r s t a p p e a r e d i n 1 5 6 0 p r i n t e d b y
Henri Estienne in Geneva, and revised in 1588.’ (American Bible
Societ y: In tero ffi ce M emoran dum, J u l y 30, 1957 )]
B i b l i a s a c r a : i u x t a Vu l g a t a m v e r s i o n e m . 2 v o l s . E d . R o b e r t We b e r.
Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1975.
T h e B i s h o p s ’ B i b l e : A F a c s i m i l e o f t h e 1 5 6 8 E d i t i o n , [ F a c s i m . ] To k y o :
elpis, 1998.
C a s i o d o r o d e R e i n a t r a n s . L a s S a g r a d a s E s c r i t u r a s : Ve r s i ó n A n t i g u a ,
12 June 2005: 546. Faithofgod.net - Alleluya.com. Bienvenido.
D e d i c a c i o n e n E s p a ñ o l : S a g r a d a s E s c r i t u r a s Ve r s i ó n A n t i g u a . 1 7 .
Mizota 70
N o v. 2 0 0 7 < h t t p : / / f a i t h o f g o d . n e t / e s / S E VA . p d f > .
C i p r i a n o d e Va l e r a r e v. L a S a n t a B i b l i a : a n t i g u o y N u e v o Te s t a m e n t o . ,
1 6 0 2 . Tr a n s . C a s i o d o r o d e R e i n a . N e w Yo r k : S o c i e d a d e s B í b l i c a s
Unidas, 1953.
Coverdale,
Miles,
trans.
The
C o v e rd a l e
Bible
1535.
[Facsim.]
Folkestone, Kent: Dawson, 1975.
Diodati,
Giovanni,
trans.
La
sacra
Bibbia.
2
vols.
Ed.
Michele
R a n c h e t t i a n d M i l k a Ve n t u r a Av a n z i n e l l i , M i l a n o : A . M o n d a d o r i ,
1999.
The 1560 Geneva Bible: First Printing: First Edition. [Facsim.]1560.
Arizona: The Bible Museum, 2006.
T h e G re a t B i b l e . [ F a c s i m . ] 1 5 3 5 . To k y o : e l p i s , 1 9 9 1 .
K u r r e l m e y e r, Wi l h e l m e d . D i e E r s t e D e u t s c h e B i b e l : A rc h t e r B a n d
( S p r u c e - J e s a j a ) . B i b l i o t h e k d e s L i t e r a r i s c h e n Ve r e i n s i n S t u t t g a r t
v o l . C C LV I I I . T ü b i n g e n : G e d r u c k t f ü r d e n L i t e r a r i s c h e n Ve r e i n s ,
1912.
Mat t h ew e, Th om as , t rans . T h e B ybl e, w hyc h i s al l t he h o l y scri pt ure: i n
w hyc h are cont ayn ed t he ol d a nd ne w e t est a me nt , t rue l ye an d
purel y t ra nsl at ed i nt o Engl i s he b y T h omas Mat t h ew e, 15 37, and
n o w i m p r i n t e d i n t h e y e a r e o f o u re l o rd e . M . D . X L I X . [ F a c s i m . ]
Ohio: Lazarus Ministry Press, 2003.
Origenis
Hexaplorum:
quae
Supersunt
sive
Ve t e r u m
I n t e r p re t u m
G r a e c o r u m i n To t u m Ve t u s Te s t a m e n t u m F r a g m e n t a To m u s . 2 E d .
Fridericus Field. Hildesheim: Georg Olims, 1964.
P a gni nu s, S ant es, t r ans. H abe s i n hoc l i bro p rud ens l e ct or vt ri usq
Mizota 71
i n s t r u m e n t i n o u a m t r a n l a t i o n e d i t a m a re u e re n d o s a c re t h e o l o g i
d o c t o re
Sancte
pagnino
lucesi
co nci on at ore
apostolico
Pr
d i c a t o r i j o r d i n i s . . . , [ O r i g i n a l ] Ly o n , 1 5 2 8 .
Ty n d a l e , Wi l l i a m , t r a n s . T h e N e w Te s t a m e n t : A R e p r i n t o f t h e E d i t i o n o f
1 5 3 4 w i t h t h e Tr a n s l a t o r ’s P r e f a c e s & N o t e s a n d t h e v a r i a n t s o f
t h e e d i t i o n o f 1 5 2 5 . E d . N . H a r d y Wa l l i s . L o n d o n : C a m b r i d g e U P,
1938.
WA [ a b b r. ] : S e e I I .
Wi l l i r a m s D e u t s c h e P a r a p h r a s e d e s H o h e n L i e d e s m i t E i l e i t u n g u n d
G l o s s a r . E d . J o s e p h S e e m üller. Q u e l l e n u n d F o r s c h u n g e n z u r
Sprach- und Culturgeschichte vol. XXVII. Strassburg: Karl J.
Tr übner, 1878.
II. Primary Sources
B i b l i a C o m p l u t e n s i s : H a e c t i b i p e n t a d e c a s t e t r a g o n o n re s p i c i t i l l u d
hospitium petri et pauliter quinque dierum. CD-ROM (North
Carolina: Heinz Schmitz: n.d. [Originally published: Complutum:
1514-1517].
E u s e b . C o m . I s a . [ a b b r. ] :
Eusebii Pamphili. Cæsareæ Palæstinæ
E p i s c o p i . O p e r a O m n i a Q u æ E x s t a n t . t o m u s . 6 . E d . J . - P. M i g n e .
Patrologiæ cursus completes: Series græca. tomus 75. 1857.
Hagedorn, Ursula ed. Das sogenannte „Kyrill’-Lexikon in der Fassung
d e r H a n d s c h r i f t E ( C o d e x B r e m e n s i s G 11 ) 1 s t . e d . , 2 0 0 5 : V I I .
K ö l n e r U n i v e r s i t ä s - P u b l i k a t i o n s - S e r v e r : E i n g a n g z u m Vo l l t e x t .
Lexikon
des
K yr illos
(E):
Dokument
1.
24.
Oct.
2007
<
Mizota 72
http://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/volltexte/2006/1813/pdf/
Hagedorn_Kyrillos_Hauptdatei.pdf>.
h . C e r. [ a b b r. ] :
Homeric hymns; Homeric apocrypha; Lives of
H o m e r . L o e b C l a s s i c a l L i b r a r y. E d . a n d Tr a n s . M a r t i n L . We s t .
Cambridge: Harvard University Press , 2003
Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon: Recensuit et Emendavit. Ed. Kurt Latte.
2 vols. Munksgaard: Hauniae, 1953-1966.
H i e r o . C o m m . I s a . [ a b b r. ] :
C o m m e n t a i re s d e J e ro m e s u r l e
P ro p h e t e I s a i e . E d . R . G r y s o n a n d J . C o u l i e . Ve t u s l a t i n a : A u s d e r
G e s c h i c h t e d e r l a t e i n i s c h e n B i b e l . 3 0 . F r e i b u r g : H e r d e r, 1 9 9 6 .
- - - . P a m m a c h i u s . [ a b b r. ] :
J e r o m e . ‘ L e t t e r t o P a m m a c h i u s ’ . Tr a n s .
K a t h l e e n D a v i s . T h e Tr a n s l a t i o n St u d i e s R e a d e r . E d . L a w r e n c e
Ve n u t i . N e w Yo r k : R o u t l e d g e , 2 0 0 4 . 2 1 - 3 0 .
H o m e r. I l . [ a b b r. ] :
H o m e r. T h e I l i a d . 2 n d e d . v o l . 2 T h e L o e b
c l a s s i c a l l i b r a r y. Tr a n s . A . T. M u r r a y. R e v. Wi l l i a m F. Wy a t t .
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1999.
I o h a n n i s Z o n a r a e L e x i c o n e x Tr i b v s C o d i c i b v s M a n v s c r i p t i s n v n c
Primvm Edidit Observationibvu Illvstravit vol.2, Ed. Johannes A.
H . Ti t t m a n n . L e i p z i g : 1 8 0 8 .
I r e n a e u s . T h e A p o s t o l i c F a t h e r s w i t h J u s t i n M a r t y r a n d I re n a e u s . Tr a n s .
P h i l i p S c h a f f . W m . B . E e r d m a n s P u b . , [ r e p r. ] 2 0 0 1 .
K i e c k e r, J a m e s G e o r g e t r a n s . a n d e d . T h e P o s t i l l a o f N i c h o l a s o f L y r a
on
the
Song
of
Songs,
Biblical
Studies
vol.3.
Milwaukee:
Marquette University Press, 1998.
Kimchi,
Davidis
ed.
Hebraeum
Bibliorum
Lexicon:
cum
Mizota 73
Animadversionibus Eliae Levitae. Berlin, 1847.
L u t h e r ' s Wo r k s o n C D - R O M . E d s . J a r o s l a v J . P e l i k a n a n d H e l m u t T.
Lehmannm. Augsburg: Augsburg Fortress Publishers, [CD-ROM]
2001.
Musa Puerlis:
T he Gre ek Ant h o l ogy vol . 4 T he Lo eb cl assi c al
l i b r a r y v o l . 8 5 . Tr a n s . W. R . P a t o n . L o n d o n : Wi l l i a m H e i n e m a n n ,
1918.
P l i n . H i s t . N . [ a b b r. ] :
P l i n y. N a t u r a l H i s t o r y . L o e b C l a s s i c a l
L i b r a r y 1 0 v o l s . Tr a n s . H . R a c k h a m , W. H . S . J o n e s a n d D . E .
E i c h h o l z . M a s s a c h u s e t t s : H a r v a r d U n i v. P r e s s , 1 9 6 3 .
Reuchlin,
Johannes.
Pforzheimer
‘Gutachten
über
Reuchlinschriften
das
Bd.II.
Jüdische
Ed.
Schrifttum’.
Antonie
L e i n z - v.
D e s s a u e r. K o n s t a n z : J . T h o r b e c k e , 1 9 6 5 .
Reuchlin,
Johannes
ed.
De
Rudimentis
Hebraicis.
[Facsim.]
H i l d e s c h e i m : G e o r g O l m s Ve r l a g , 1 9 7 4 . [ O r i g i n a l l y p u b l i s h e d :
Pfortzheim: 1506].
Reuchlin, Johann. ‘Report about the books of the Jews’. The Case
a g a i n s t J o h a n n R e u c h l i n : R e l i g i o u s a n d S o c i a l C o n t ro v e r s y i n
S i x t e e n t h - C e n t u r y G e r m a n y . E d . a n d Tr a n s . E r i k a R u m m e l .
To r o n t o : U n i v. o f To r o n t o P r e s s , 2 0 0 2 . 8 6 - 9 7 .
S c h o l i a G r a e c a i n H o m e r i I l i a d e m : S c h o l i a Ve t e r a . E d . H a r t m u t E r b s e .
v o l . 4 . B e r l i n : Wa l t e r d e G r u y t e r, 1 9 7 5 .
T h e o p h r. H P [ a b b r. ] :
Theophrastus. Enquiry into Plants. 2 vols.
E d . T. E . P a g e e t a l . Tr a n s . A r t h u r H o r t . L o e b C l a s s i c a l L i b r a r y.
L o n d o n : Wi l l i a m H e i n e m a n n , 1 9 1 6 .
Mizota 74
WA [ a b b r. ] : D . M a r t i n L u t h e r s We r k e : K r i t i s c h e G e s a m t a u s g a b e . 6 5
v o l s . We i m a r : Ve r l a g H e r m a n n B ö h l a u s n N o c h f o l g e r, 1 8 8 3 - 1 9 6 6 .
Z e n o b i u s , D i o g e n i a n u s , P l u t a rc h u s , G r e g o r i u s C y p r i u s c u m a p p e n d i c e
p ro v e r b i o r u m
Ed.
E.
L.
Leutsch
and
F.
G.
Schneidewin.
paperbacks vol. 21. Hildesheim: Georg. Olms, 1965.
III. Seconda ry So urces
A l e x a n d e r. S e e I .
Barthes,
Roland.
‘La
mort
de
l’auteur ’ Roland
Barthes:
Πu v re s
C o m p l é t e s To m e I I , E d . É r i c M a r t y. P a r i s : S e u i l , 1 9 9 4 . 4 9 1 - 5 .
B e n é t , Wi l l i a m R o s e e d . , T h e R e a d e r ' s E n c y c l o p e d i a : A n E n c y c l o p e d i a
o f Wo r l d L i t e r a t u r e a n d T h e A r t s . L o n d o n : G. G. H a r r a p , 1 9 4 8 .
B u r n e t t , S t e p h e n G. ‘ C h r i s t i a n A r a m a i s m : T h e B i r t h a n d G r o w t h o f
Aramaic S cholarship in the Sixteenth Centur y’ Seeking Out the
Wi s d o m o f t h e A n c i e n t s : E s s a y s O f f e r e d t o H o n o r M i c h a e l V. F o x
o n t h e O c c a s i o n o f H i s S i x t y - F i f t h B i r t h d a y . E d . R o n a r d L . Tr o x e l ,
K e l v i n G. F r i e b e l a n d D e n n i s R . M a g a r y. I n d i a n a : E i s e n b r a u n s ,
2005. 421-36.
Butterworth,
K I N T E I - YA K U
Charles.
SEISYO-NO
BUNGAKU-TEKI
K E I F U : 1 3 4 0 - 1 6 11 [ T h e l i t e r a r y l i n e a g e o f t h e K i n g J a m e s B i b l e ,
1 3 4 0 - 1 6 11 ] . Tr a n s . K u n i h a r u S a i t o . To k y o : C y u o - S y o i n , 1 9 8 0 .
Chantraine,
Pierre
g re c q u e :
ed.,
h i s t o i re
D i c t i o n n a i re
des
mots.
étymologique
3
vols.
Paris:
de
la
langue
Klincksieck,
1968-1980.
Davidson,
Benjamin
ed.
The
Analytical
H e b re w
Lexicon.
[ R e p r. ]
Mizota 75
London: Hendrickson, 1981. [Originally published: 1848].
Dori v al , Gi l l es, M a rgu eri t e H arl , and Ol i ve r Munni ch. L a Bi bl e gre cqu e
des Septante: Du Judaïsme hellénistique au Christianisme ancien.
I n i t i a t i o n a u c h r i s t i a n i s m e a n c i e n . P a r i s : C E R F, 1 9 8 8 .
Encyclopaedia Judaica. 17 vols. Jerusalem: Enc yclopaedia Judaica,
1971-1972.
The Encyclop edia of Isla m, New Ed. v ol. 6. Ed. Cl ifford Edm und
Bosworth et al ed. Leiden: Bril, 1997.
G e s e n i u s , Wi l h e l m e d . A H e b re w a n d E n g l i s h L e x i c o n o f t h e O l d
Te s t a m e n t :
Including
the
BiblicalChaldee.
Tr a n s .
Edward
R o b i n s o n B o s t o n : N Y: 1 8 8 2 .
A G r e e k - E n g l i s h L e x i c o n : C o m p i l e d b y H e n r y G e o rg e L i d d e l l a n d
R o b e r t S c o t t . E d . H e n r y G. L i d d e l l a n d R o b e r t S c o t t . O x f o r d : R e v.
Henry Stuart Jones. Clarendon Press, 1968.
H e h n , Vi c t o r. C u l t i v a t e d p l a n t s a n d d o m e s t i c a t e d a n i m a l s i n t h e i r
migration
f rom
Asia
to
E u ro p e :
historico-linguistic
studies
[ K u l t u r p f l a n z e n u n d H a u s t i e r e i n i h r e m Ü b e rg a n g a u s A s i e n n a c h
Griechenland
und
Italien
Historisch-linguistische
sowie
St u d i e n ]
in
das
übrige
Amsterdam
studies
E u ro p a :
in
the
t h e o r y a n d h i s t o r y o f l i n g u i s t i c s c i e n c e S e r. 1 . v o l . 7 . E d . J a m e s P.
M a l l o r y. A m s t e r d a m : J o h n B e n j a m i n s , 1 9 7 6 .
Hengel,
Martin.
KIRISTO-KYOU
BUBSYO
TO
SHITE
NO
N A N A - J Y U U N I N YA K U : S O N O Z E N - S H I T O S E I T E N T O S H I T E - N O
MONDAI [Die Septuaginta als ‘christliche Schriftensammlung
i h re Vo rg e s c h c h t e u n d d a s P ro b l e m i h re s K a n o n s ’ ] Tr a n . K e n j i
Mizota 76
To k i a n d I k u k o Yu k a w a . To k y o : K y o u b u n k a n , 2 0 0 5 .
Hirsch, S. A. ‘Johann Reuchlin, the Father of the Study of Hebrew
a m o n g C h r i s t i a n s ’ . T h e J e w i s h Q u a r t e r l y R e v i e w . Vo l . 8 , N o . 3 .
( A p r. 1 8 9 6 ) . 4 4 5 - 4 7 0 .
T h e J e w i s h e n c y c l o p e d i a , E d . I s i d o r e S i n g e e t a l . 1 2 v o l s . N e w Yo r k :
K TAV P u b . H o u s e . 1 9 0 1 .
Jones, Henry Stuart, ‘The Making of a Lexicon’. The Classical Review.
Vo l . 5 5 , N o 1 . ( M a r. , 1 9 4 1 ) . 1 - 1 3 .
K e n k y u s h a ’s N e w E n g l i s h - J a p a n e s e D i c t i o n a r y . 6 t h . e d . E d . S h i g e r u
Ta k e b a y a s h i e t . a l s . To k y o : K e n k y u s h a , 2 0 0 2 .
Kl ei n , E rn est ed. A C o mpreh ensi ve Et y mol ogi cal Di c t i onar y of t h e
English Language. vol. 2. Amsterdam: Elsevier Bub., 1967.
K o o i m a n , Wi l l e m J a n . R U T Ā T O S E I S H O [ L u t h e r e n d e B i j b e l ] .
Tr a n s .
Tc h i t o s e K i s h i . To k y o : S e i b u n s h a , 1 9 7 1 .
L e w i s , C h a r l t o n T. r e v. A L a t i n D i c t i o n a r y : F o u n d e d o n A n d r e w s ’
E d i t i o n o f F r e u n d ’s L a t i n D i c t i o n a r y . O x f o r d : T h e C l a r e n d o n
Press, 1879.
Llo yd-Jones, Hugh. ‘Hes ychius’ Lexicon’. The Classical Review, New
S e r. , v o l . 1 9 , N o . 1 . ( M a r. , 1 9 6 9 ) 5 0 - 5 1 .
Lipiński,
Edward.
Semitic
Languages
Outline
of
a
Comparative
Grammar. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en Department Oosterse
Studies, 1997.
M a y r h o f e r, M a n f r e d e d . K u r z g e f a ß t e s e t y m o l o g i s c h e s W ö r t e r b u c h d e s
altindichen [A Concise Etymological Sanskrit Dictionary] vol.1.
H e i d e l b e r g : C a r l Wi n t e r, 1 9 5 6 .
Mizota 77
Meek, Theophile J. intro. and exegesis. ‘The Song of Songs’, The
i n t e r p re t e r ' s B i b l e . E d . G e o r g e A r t h u r B u t t r i c k e t a l . v o l . 5 . N e w
Yo r k : N a s h v i l l e : A b i n g d o n - C o k e s b u r y P r e s s 1 9 5 6 . 9 1 - 1 4 8 .
M u n d a y,
J e r e m y.
I n t ro d u c i n g
Tr a n s l a t i o n
St u d i e s
Theories
and
A p p l i c a t i o n s . N e w Yo r k : R o u t l e d g e , 2 0 0 1 .
The
New
encyclopædia
Britannica.
15th
ed.
vol.
5.
Chicago:
Enc yclopædia Britannica, 1989
N i d a , E u g e n e A . H O N YA K U - G A K U J Y O S E T U [ To w a rd a S c i e n c e o f
Tr a n s l a t i n g ] Tr a n s . Ta k e s h i N a r u s e . To k y o : K e i b u n s h a , 1 9 7 1 .
- - - , a n d C h a r l e s R . Ta b e r. T h e T h e o r y a n d P r a c t i c e o f Tr a n s l a t i o n .
Leiden: Bril, 1969.
- - - . M o r p h o l o g y : T h e D e s c r i p t i v e A n a l y s i s o f Wo rd s . 2 n d . E d . A n n
A r b o r : U n i v. o f M i c h i g a n P r e s s , 1 9 4 6 .
O E D [ a b b r. ] :
T h e O x f o rd E n g l i s h D i c t i o n a r y . 2 n d E d . P r e p a r e d b y
J . A . S i m p s o n a n d E . S . C . We i n e r. O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n P r e s s ,
1989.
R e n d s b u r g , G r a y A . ‘ L i p i ń s k i ’s “ S e m i t i c L a n g u a g e s ” ’ . T h e J e w i s h
Q u a r t e r l y R e v i e w , X C , N o s . 3 - 4 ( J a n . - A p r. , 2 0 0 0 ) 4 1 9 - 3 8 .
R u s s e l l , N o r m a n . C y r i l o f A l e x a n d r i a . N e w Yo r k : R o u t l e d g e , 2 0 0 0 .
S k e a t , Wa l t e r W. e d . A n E t y m o l o g i c a l D i c t i o n a r y o f t h e E n g l i s h
Language. New ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968.
S m i t h , Wi l l i a m e d . A d i c t i o n a r y o f t h e b i b l e C o m p r i s i n g i t s A n t i q u i t i e s ,
B i o g r a p h y, G e o g r a p h y, a n d N a t u r a l H i s t o r y . v o l s . 3 . L o n d o n ,
1863.
S u f f i x e s a n d O t h e r Wo rd - F i n a l E l e m e n t s o f E n g l i s h . E d . L a u r e n c e
Mizota 78
U r d a n g , A l e x a n d e r H u m e z , a n d H o w e r d G. Z e t t l e r. D e t r o i t : G a l e
R e s e r c h C o m p a n y, 1 9 8 2 .
T h e Ta i s h u k a n E n c y c l o p a e d i a o f E n g l i s h L i n g u i s t i c s . E d . Ta m o t s u
M a t s u n a m i e t a l . To k y o : Ta i s h u k a n , 1 9 8 3 ) 8 6 5 - 7 6 .
T h e Te m p l e D i c t i o n a r y o f t h e B i b l e . E d s . W. E w i n g a n d J . E . H . T h o m s o n
et al. London: J.M.Dent & Sons, 1910.
Te r a s a w a ,
Yo s h i o ,
K I N T E I - E I YA K U
SEISHO:
SONO
SEIRITSU
TO
S Y O S H I G A K U - T E K I K A I S E T S U . To k y o : K e n k y u s h a , 1 9 8 5 .
Ts u j i , M a n a b u . ‘ S E I S Y O : R E K I S I - T E K I H I H A N - T E K I K A I S YA K U N O
GENKA I TO KANOUSE I [The Bibl e: Limits and Future of the
Historical-Critical Interpretation]’ Kwansai Gakuin University
J o u r n a l o f St u d i e s o n C h r i s t i a n i t y a n d C u l t u re N o . 7 ( 2 0 0 7 ) :
45-57.
Vi n a y, J e a n - P a u l a n d J e a n D a r b e l n e t . ‘ A M e t h o d o l o g y f o r Tr a n s l a t i o n ’ .
Tr a n s . J u a n C . S a g e r a n d M . - J . H a m e l T h e Tr a n s l a t i o n St u d i e s
R e a d e r 2 n d . e d . , L a w r e n c e Ve n u t i e d . N e w Yo r k : R o u t l e d g e , 2 0 0 4 .
128-37.
Wa t k i n s , C a l v e r t r e v. a n d e d . T h e A m e r i c a n H e r i t a g e D i c t i o n a r y o f
I n d o - E u ro p e a n R o o t s . B o s t o n : H o u g h t o n M i f f l i n C o m p a n y, 1 9 8 5 .
We h r, H a n s e d . , A D i c t i o n a r y o f M o d e r n Wr i t t e n A r a b i c ( A r a b i c
-English)
Ed.
J
Milton
Cowan,
4th.
Ed.
Wi e s b a d e n :
Otto
Harrassowitz, 1979.
Vi n a y, J e a n - P a u l a n d J e a n D a e b e l n e t . ‘ A M e t h o d o l o g y f o r Tr a n s l a t i o n ’ .
Tr a n s . J u a n C . S a g e r a n d M . – J . H a m e l . T h e Tr a n s l a t i o n St u d i e s
Reader.
Ed.
L a w r e n c e Ve n u t i . N e w Yo r k :
Routledge, 2004.
Mizota 79
128-37.
We s t c o t t , B r o o k e F o s s . A G e n e r a l Vi e w o f t h e H i s t o r y o f t h e E n g l i s h
Bible. London: Macmillan, 1905.
Ya s u i , M i n o r u e t a l . , I M I - R O N [ L i n g u i s t i c S e m a n t i c s ] , E I G O - G A K U
TA I K E I [ O u t l i n e o f E n g l i s h L i n g u i s t i c s ] . E d . A k i r a O t a . v o l . 5 .
To k y o : Ta i s h u k a n , 1 9 8 3 .