281 THE ADDITIONS LXX JOB 2,9A-E IN prosdexomenh ton hlion pote dysetai, ¥ ù™ ¥ ¥ ™ ına anapayswmai twn moxuwn kaı twn odynwn, ß ¥ ˜ ¥ ù˜ß ˜ aı me nyn synexoysin. ™ ˜ ¥ 9d As for me, I am one that wanders about and a hired servant — from place to place and house to house, waiting for when the sun will set, so I can rest from the distresses and griefs that now beset me. The words planhtiv and latriv are hapax legomena. planhtiv ˜ ¥ ˜ appears in many LXX manuscripts but is not taken by Ziegler as OG 15. Rahlfs does have it as OG. This noun does not appear in the papyri, but it occurs in Lycophron of Chalcis in Euboea who wrote his comedy Alexandra, circa the 4–3 century BCE. According to Muraoka (GLS) latriv has the nuance of “handmaid” ¥ in its semantic fields. It appears abundantly in the classical Greek authors such as Euripides and Sophocles, but not in the papyri. The important point in this regard is that the wife of Job is describing herself as a servant, after she used to be an important lady of the house. There are various Greek words that could have been used in this regard. The noun doylh, for one, does not appear in the OG of Job. Interestingly enough, ¥ doylov, the male equivalent “male slave” is used abundantly in the LXX, ˜ but only once in Job, namely in 40,28. Other lexemes for a woman-slave are oıketiv that appears only in Ex 21,7; Le 19,20 and Prov 30,23. The ߥ noun Paidıskh also is used in the LXX, but not in OG Job. ¥ 9ea alla eßpon ti rhma eıv kyrion kaı teleyta ß ù ı¥ Ω˜ ߥ ù ¥ Now say some word to the Lord and die!” There are significant differences between MT and LXX in this chapter. Firstly, the five strophes of additions have no equivalent elsewhere. Clearly the person(s) responsible for this phrase intended to leave the impression that Job’s wife contemplated her reactions and pictures her as an unsympathetic person, one who has no understanding of Job’s reverent position. Secondly, the translator/revisor did not provide a translation for the phrase tmw ËrB μyho a in verse 9, but in the final addition u ; ´; Il ı e. Finally, the Greek seemingly avoids referring to “cursing God”, hence ËrB is translated by means of eıpon. ® ´; It is crucial to determine whether these additions are indeed the result of the translator, or of a differing Semitic parent text. It is also, theoretically at least, possible that a later revisor added these strophes. One way of determining the origin of the additions is to analyse the individual lexemes. If they are found in the rest of Job one can naturally expect them to be the handiwork of the translator 16. From the above According to Ziegler B and S* read planwmenh. He also chose this ¥ 15 reading as OG. For this reason I analyse individual lexemes in Job. 16