Platońskie podłoże językowe Księgi Rodzaju 1–2 w wersji Septuaginty? Wstępna próba rewizji pewnej teorii
Platonic pattern of the phraseology of Genesis 1–2 LXX revisited

Summary/Abstract: In 1994 Martin Rösel tried to demonstrate the influence of Platonic phraseology onthe Greek text of the opening chapters of Genesis (LXX Genesis 1–11, Rösel: Übersetzung als Vollendung des Auslegung). The paper attempts to take up anew thequestion of the possible hints of Platonic language in Genesis 1–2 LXX. The authorargues that at least three examples already pointed out by Rösel seem to be bestexplained as the adaptation of the phraseology of Plato indeed (Gen 1.2: ἀόρατοςκαὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος – Plat. Tim. 50d–51a: ἂν παρεσκευασµένον εὖ / ἀνόρατον εἶδόςτι καὶ ἄµορφον; Gen 1.4f ὅτι καλόν; Plat., Tim. 28a, 29a: καλὸν ἐξ ἀνάγκης, καλόςἐστιν ὅδε ὁ κόσµος; Gen 1.26–27: κατ᾽ εἰκόνα … καθ᾽ ὁµοίωσιν [θεοῦ]; Plat. Tim. 39b:εἰκόνα τινὸς εἶναι, Plat. Theaet. 176b: ὁµοίωσις θεῷ). He adds, however, two furtherpossible instances of such phraseological influence (Gen 1.1: ἐποίησεν ὁ θεός – Plat.Tim. 31a: ἐποίησεν ὁ ποιῶν, Gen 2.24: δύο εἰς … µίαν – Plat. Symp. 191d: ἓν ἐκ δυοῖν).It seems reasonable to argue that the translators of Septuagint consciously appliedPlatonic phraseology, which they borrowed from the cosmological imaginary(especially from Timaeus), as the best Greek equivalent of certain Hebrew expressions. Possible linguistic borrowing however did not necessarily mean, as Röselbelieved, any serious “implementation” of Platonic doctrine into the Biblical text,maybe except the idea of original complementarity of man and woman in Gen 2.24(cf. Symp. 192e) virtually absent in the Hebrew version.

• Details
• Contents