282 JOHANN COOK analysis it is clear that by far the largest number of lexemes in these additions are well-known to the translator. The picture is, nevertheless, diverse. There are three hapax legomena; dianyktereyw in verse 9c and ¥ planhtiv, latriv (verse 9d). ˜ ¥ Some lexemes are used sparingly, eg. the verbs probaınw and ¥ karterew (verse 9) are used only once in Job. These examples are ¥ stricktly speaking not part of the additions, however, the translator does not distinguish dichotomically between the OG of verse 9 and the additions. mnhmosynon (9b) is used only twice in Job. The verb kopiaw ¥ ¥ (9b) occurs three times in Job and the noun moxuov appears only in these ¥ pluses in Job. The adjective aıuriov (9c) is used only once in Job. The ¶ verb dyw (9d) also occurs once only in Job. ¥ From this analysis it would therefore be possible to conclude that the additions come from the hand of the translator. By far most of the lexemes used in the additions are common to the book of Job. Needless to say this argument can not be decisive. A second option is to search for external material. There are, unfortunately, no extant Hebrew evidence of these additions. There are some lexemes, such as planhtiv and latriv ˜ ¥ that appear in Greek classical literature, but this is not different from the normal pattern eg. in LXX Proverbs. A third avenue is to take a closer look at the structure of the additions. Of crucial significance in this regard is the fact that a translation for the phrase μyho a ËrB tmw is not provided in Il ı ´; u ; verse 9 in connection with the Hebrew text. It is done only in the final addition e. This means that these additions were most probably introduced by the translator himself. If a later hand was responsible for these additions one would naturally expect the added strophes to be, so to say, “ hooked onto, added to” the text. However, in this instance the additions were interwoven into the existing text, seemingly by the translator himself. It is of course theoretically possible that a later revisor added these lines. If this was indeed the case, then he should have been familiar with the Greek text of Job. This is indeed the view of Fernández Marcos 17. He thinks these additions are a midrashic expansion introduced by a later hand. In his view this lament could represent the point of departure for the testament of Job, where the role of the wife of Job is amplified 18. Heater is also of the opinion that the translator is responsible for this addition 19. To him “The occurrence of eight words in this addition not appearing elsewhere in Job seems to point to a later hand than that of the Ibid., 257. 17 Cf. P.W. VAN DER HORST, “Images of Women in the Testament of Job”, 18 Studies on the Testament of Job, M.A. KNIBB – P.W. VAN DER HORST (eds.) (SNTS MS 66; Cambridge 1989) 93-117. See also M.C. LEGASPI, “Job’s wives in the Testament of Job: A note on the Synthesis of Two traditions”, JBL 127 (2008) 71-79. H. HEATER, A Septuagint Translation Technique in the Book of Job 19 (CBQMS 11; Washington, DC 1982) 35-36.