Well, James, since you put it that way, my suggestion would be that you check
what Schleusner has to say (under the Hebrew entry), and also perhaps look at
some of the pre-Hatch-Redpath concordances, which give Latin meanings (not
necessarily Vulgate, however) as well. Here are some pertinent clips from a draft
of the Intro that Emanuel Tov and I did for the recent reprint of Hatch-Redpath:
Conrad (Konrad) Kircher, <t>Concordantiae Veteris Testamenti
Graecae, Ebraeis Vocibus Respondentes <gk>polu/xrhstoi</gk>.
simul enim et Lexicon Ebraicolatinum, Ebraicograecum,
Graecoebraicum: genuinam vocabulorum significationem, ex
Septuaginta duorum, ut vulgo volunt, interpretum (vel istis, pro
tempore, deficientibus, ex Aquilae nonnunquam, vel Symmachi, vel
Theodotionis) translatione petitam: homonymiam ac synonymiam
Graecam & Ebraeam: quin & Ebraismorum variorum explanationem
Graecam: Graecismorum elocutionem Ebraeam: & sic
<gk>diasa/fhsin</gk> Veteris & Novi Testamenti, collatione
linguarum utrobique facta, suavissima <gk>sumfwni/a|</gk>,
lectoribus exhibent</>. 2 vols (Frankfurt a.M.: Claudium Marnium,
& heredes Iohannis Aubrii, 1607)
1718 Abraham Trommius, <t>Concordantiae Graecae Versionis Vulgo
Dictae LXX Interpretum, Cujus voces secundum ordinem
elementorum sermonis Graeci digestae recensentur, contra atque
in Opere Kircheriano factum fuerat. Leguntur hic praeterea Voces
Graecae pro Hebraicis redditae; Ab antiquis omnibus Veteris
Testamenti Interpretibus, quorum nonnisis fragmenta extant,
Aquila, Symmacho, Theodotione & aliis, quorum maximam partem
nuper in lucem edidit Domnus Bernardus de Montfaucon</>, 2 vols
(Amsterdam/Utrecht: Sumptibus Societatis, 1718).
Jacob Le Long, <t>Bibliotheca Sacra in Binos Syllabos
Distincta, quorum prior qui jam tertio auctior prodit, omnes sive
Textus sacri sive Versionum ejusdem quavis Lingua expressarum
Editiones; nec non praestantiores MSS. Codices, cum Notis
historicis & criticis exhibet. Posterior vero continet omnia
eorum opera quovis idiomate conscripta, qui huc usque in sacram
Scripturam quidpiam ediderunt simul collecta tum ordine Auctorum
alphabetico disposita; tum serie sacrorum Librorum. Huic
coronidis loco subjiciuntur grammaticae et lexica linguarum,
Praesertim Orientalium, quae ad illustrandas sacras paginas
aliquid adjumenti conferre possunt</>, 2 vols., ed. P. N.
Desmolets, with the preface by C. F. Boerner reprinted from the
1709 Leipzig edition (Paris: Montalant, 1723 ).
Johann Christian Biel (posthumously ed by E. H. Mutzenbecher),
<t>Novus Thesaurus Philologicus, sive Lexicon in LXX et alios
Interpretes et Scriptores Apocryphos Veteris Testamenti</> 3 vols
(Hague: J. A. Bouvink, 1779-1780).
Johann Friedrich Schleusner, <t>Novus thesaurus philologico-
criticus, sive lexicon in LXX et reliquos interpretes graecos ac
scriptores apocryphos Veteris Testamenti</> (Leipzig: Weidmann,
1820-1821; 2nd ed. Glasgow: Duncan, 1822 and London: Duncan, 1829
[reprinted Turnhout: Brepols, 1994]).
H.A. Redpath, "Concordances to the Old Testament in Greek", The
Expositor 5.3 (1896), 69-77 [reviews the earlier works of Kircher
(1607), Savile-Gagnier (1714), Aungier (1647), Trommius (1718),
and "G.M." = Morrish (Bagster, 1887)].
R. H. Rouse and M. A. Rouse, "The Verbal Concordance to the
Scriptures," Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 44 (1974) 5-30 [deals
almost excusively with early concordances to the Latin Bible;
note p.5 n.1: "The history of the Greek and the Hebrew
concordances ... needs more careful investigation"].
The first printed concordance that attempted systematically to
incorporate information from the LXX/OG and associated materials
was published in 1607, after seven years of effort, by Conrad
Kircher, a much traveled Lutheran pastor born in Augsburg -- it
is probably significant that the first published New Testament
concordance was also by a native of Augsburg, Xystus Betuleius
(Sixtus Birken) in 1546 (so Bindseil, 689 and 693). Kircher's
title was seen by some critics (especially Trommius) to be
deceptive, since it was not arranged primarily as a "concordance
to the Greek OT" with the Greek words governing the format, but
its data was arranged alphabetically in accord with the supposed
Hebrew roots. Thus in some sense it was basically a Hebrew
concordance in format, but under each Hebrew entry, each apparent
Greek equivalent was listed along with the passages that attested
that Greek choice, including, occasionally, information from the
Hexapla. Thus for any given Hebrew headword, there might be
several subsections each representing a different Greek
equivalent. Latin meanings were appended to both the Hebrew and
the Greek keywords.
Critics struggled to find any consistent rationale for the exact
order of the Hebrew entries (e.g. <hb>)BYB</>, <hb>)BD</>, and
several other Hebrew words stand between <hb>AB</> = "root" and
<hb>AB</> = "father" in the opening columns) or the order in
which the Greek equivalents were presented. An Index was provided
to make it possible to find there the alphabetically arranged
Greek words, but the value of the index was severely compromised
by the fact that it only gave the column numbers to which the
user must then turn to determine what Hebrew was being
represented. Greek words found in the Apocrypha, which had no
preserved Hebrew basis and thus were not covered by the body of
the concordance, were included in the index (but without Latin
translation) along with the particular passages in which the
words were found. As a presumably pioneering effort, Kircher's
work was bold and aimed at being comprehensive (see the lengthy
"title" with its listing of various features and functions --
organization according to Hebrew headwords; Lexica for Hebrew-
Latin, Hebrew-Greek, and Greek-Hebrew equivalents; materials from
Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion as well as LXX/OG; Greek and
Hebrew homonymns and synonyms; Greek explanation of Hebrew
variations, and Hebrew of Greek; valuable for New Testament
studies as well as Old). As Trommius and others would point out,
however, problems both with the organization and with the details
rendered Kircher problematic as a reliable tool.
According to Redpath, several attempts to improve on Kircher's
concordance appeared in the following decades of the 17th
century. One is attributed to Henry Savile, although that
identification seems problematic to Redpath on the basis of the
attributed date at "a time when Savile had been long dead" -- but
at least two literary figures by that name flourished in the 17th
century, the first and most famous of whom died around 1622, but
the other not until 1687. In any event, Redpath calls the "Savile"
compilation "a mere work of scissors and paste for the greater
part. Two copies of Kircher were cut up and distributed in
alphabetical order according to the Greek words, and the Hebrew
equivalents were inserted either in MS or from the headings of
Kircher's articles." Redpath notes that this work was preserved
in the Bodleian Library at Oxford (press-mark, Auct. E. I. 2, 3),
and that "a speciman" was printed and published in 1714 by the
University Press, edited by Jean Gagnier.
Perhaps the most impressive and comprehensive effort at
publishing a concordance of the Greek Jewish scriptures came from
the hand of Abraham van der Trommen, or Trom(m), or Trommius as
he calls himself in the volume under examination. Trommius was a
protestant pastor from Groningen, in the Netherlands, who had
studied Hebrew with the younger Johann Buxtorf in Basel as well
as traveling to France and England during his career; already in
1692, he had produced a "Belgian" (Flemish) concordance to the
Bible before he, at age 84, issued his Greek concordance in 1718,
following sixteen years of effort. He died the following year.
Trommius is understandably critical of aspects of Kircher's work,
and even includes in his lengthy title (typical for those times)
the description "with words following the order of the Greek
verbal elements, contrary to the approach taken in Kircher's
work"! In his Preface, Trommius takes issue with Kircher on three
main points (as well as several lesser matters): (1) the failure
to organize the materials alphabetically with the Greek as the
basis; (2) the numerous erroneous quotations, probably caused by
the manner in which Kircher worked by first recording where a
Greek word occurred and only later filling in the actual
contexts; (3) the confused and confusing attempt to organize by
Hebrew roots. That Trommius was not opposed in principle to some
sort of lexical grouping is shown by his own juxtaposition of
related Greek words in his entries -- e.g. the same structural
block contains <gk>agapaw, hgaphmenos, agaph, agaphtos</>, etc.
But when he presents the Hebrew or Aramaic equivalents to the
Greek keywords, he does this strictly alphabetically; and
similarly in the appended Hebrew-Greek Index which is 130 pages
long and a mine of useful information.
Otherwise, Trommius discusses briefly the following procedural
1. For his main Greek text, he uses the 1597 Frankfort edition
of Andrew Wechel, following including its occasional appended
scholia and its chapter and verse divisions (as did Kircher).
2. Other editions have been consulted, such as London 1653 (with
its scholia) and Cambridge 1665 and Amsterdam 1683 and most
recently the 1709 edition by Franciscus Halma and Lambert Bos
(with its numerous scholia), and a final appendix is included,
prepared by Lambert Bos (33 pages), which notes differences in
chapter and verse locators between the Wechel text and the London
edition of the Vatican text (MS B, codex Vaticanus).
3. Other ancient Greek versions and variations are also included,
such as Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion (so also Kircher), and
Montfaucon's Greek lexicon to the Hexapla forms a second appendix
4. A special notation is used to flag places in which no Greek is
present to represent the Hebrew, but information from scholia and
similar older sources is substituted (Kircher also includes such
5. Hebrew words not represented in the Greek are not included,
except as noted in #4; for Greek words that have no Hebrew or
Aramaic equivalent, an appropriate notation is also provided.
6. Transliterated Hebrew words and place names are treated
7. Partial or paraphrastic renderings present problems.
8. Places where the Greek does not fully render what is in the
Hebrew also present problems.
9. Does not include proper names (similarly Kircher), unless they
are actually translated (not simply transliterated) by the Greek.
10. Does not include indeclinables, prepositions and conjunctions
(so also Kircher).
11. Includes words found in the Apocrypha, appropriately
designated (see also Kircher's Greek-Hebrew Index).
12. Inclusion of Latin definitions for Hebrew and Greek (as in
Kircher; in Trommius, occasionally also Flemish/Belgian
definitions are provided!), but basically follows dictionary
order of Hebrew and Greek words (unlike Kircher).
Redpath's summary comparing the works of Trommius and Kircher is
worth excerpting (73f): "Trommius gives many more quotations from
the Hexapla than Kircher did. He does not quote the
transliterated words, and omits passages which are paraphrastic
or do not give the meaning of the Hebrew. Proper names are, as a
rule, omitted, and both Concordances omit indeclinable words and
pronouns. The apocryphal quotations are by no means complete. A
certain number of passages are given by both compilers, derived
from scholia and other sources, but not actually to be found in
the present text of the LXX. These are marked with a # by
Trommius" (and similarly identified by Kircher).
Redpath continues (74), with marked understatement(!): "Though
the book is by no means perfect, it is in some respects an
advance upon Kircher. Trommius generally notices the Hebrew
conjugations and also inserts conjectures as to what the Hebrew
reading of the LXX was. But the work is disfigured by a
considerable number of misprints and misplacements of passages in
succession. This was probably due to a slip of the MS being
misplaced, as we gather from these mistakes that each slip
contained about six or seven lines of MS. ... So far as a rough
calculation can settle the point, there would seem to be four
quotations in Trommius for every three in Kircher."
More promising for our purposes was the line of development laid
out in Johann Christian Biel's posthumous <t>Novus thesaurus
philologicus</> that appeared in 1779-1780. This work deserves to
be discussed along with its successor, Johann Friedrich
Schleusner's <t>Novus thesaurus philologico-criticus</> (1820-
21), since the two works are, in general, virtually identical
both in title and in structure and general content. Indeed,
Schleusner reprints the preface that E. H. Mutzenbecher
contributed to the edition of Biel, right after Schleusner's own
To be sure, Biel and Schleusner are not concordances in the
normal sense, and they do not attempt to list all biblical
occurrences of each Greek headword, but they do organize the
material in Greek alphabetical order, followed in each Greek
entry by the Hebrew or Aramaic word equivalents and sample
references. Basic to such an effort is the tool produced by
Trommius. Where Biel and Schleusner make marked progress is in
annotating and analyzing the presumed equivalents, including
those drawn from Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, with much
more attention to identifying situations in which the Greek
translator may have had a different Hebrew text, or may have read
the text that was present in what seems to us an unusual manner.
Although Biel and the first edition of Schleusner do not include
a Hebrew index, this has been supplied (Hebrew words in
alphabetic order plus page locations where they occur) in the 2nd
edition of Schleusner, published in Glasgow (1822) and London
(1829). Even today, the materials in these antiquated volumes
provide valuable information to be used alongside of our improved
reprints and new tools (printed and electronic); for some
suggested refinements, see Kraft, "Towards a Lexicon of Jewish
Translation Greek" (in Kraft 157-178). Indeed, current electronic
capabilities facilitate the combination of "lexicon" and
"concordance" features (as well as "grammatical" and others) into
a single super-tool through the linking of interrelated files
(see further below).
What would motivate Schleusner to produce his work so relatively
soon (at least from our vantage point) after the appearance of
Biel's work? Doubtless there were a variety of factors, but an
important event in LXX/OG study had occurred in the interim, the
appearance, in stages, of the major critical edition by Holmes
and Parsons (Oxford, 1795-1827). It was a period of renewed
interest in these materials, and Schleusner remains as a lasting
monument. The same sort of eruption of textual activity provides
the context for the appearance of the Hatch-Redpath concordance,
surrounded as it was by a flow of new discoveries and attendant
textcritical work that still continues. </quote>
So, James, good luck!
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, CS Bartholomew wrote:
> > On 11/5/03 6:03 AM, "James Miller (office)" <jamtat@...> wrote:
> > > I'm doing a bit of study on a particular Latin word that appears in the
> > > Vulgate. I'd like to know what scholars think is the underlying Hebrew
> > > word it translates. I was expecting to find some reference source that,
> > > like Hatch and Redpath (there's the LXX link in this post!) or maybe
> > > certain English-language concordances, gives the conjectured Hebrew word
> > > the translation word is rendering. 2 Latin concordances I've consulted
> > > thus far have made no reference to Hebrew whatever. Are there some such
> > > sources I'm missing? If so, what are they? Where are some places to
> > > look/ask further about this matter?
> > >
> > > Thanks, James
> > Would it be too much trouble to tell us what the Latin word is? Some of us
> > have the means of doing highly complex multi language searches, i.e.
> > LXX/MT/Vulg.
> You mean, like using Bible Works/Logos/Bible Windows software? If so, I
> can do those (and have done them) too. The stodgy old committees that
> scrutinize dissertations and give them the final nod are reluctant to
> accept such new-fangled, untested (read: unfamiliar to them)
> authorities. Not to mention the citation problems. They want the good
> old-fashioned print kind - you know, leather bindings, pages stiffened
> through disuse, exuding the musty aroma of sequestered libraries . . .
> Know of any such?
> PS I also maintain the delusion that I am the undisputed expert on this
> list concerning the word in question and its relation to Greek and Hebrew,
> and that rehashing basic questions about the interrelation would not be a
> productive use of my time. Please pardon my snootiness.
> PPS Yes, it would be too much trouble :)
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Robert A. Kraft, Religious Studies, University of Pennsylvania
227 Logan Hall (Philadelphia PA 19104-6304); tel. 215 898-5827