Between Tradition and Innovation: God’s ‘Long Nose’ as μακρόθυμος

Already in 1846, Z. Frankel noticed the “euphemistic translation” of anthropomorphisms as part of the Palestinian influence on the LXX. G. Bickel (1862), more extremely so, speaks of a detestatio anthropomorphismorum et anthropopathismorum at work in the LXX. C. Fritsch (1943) more carefully concludes that the “anti-anthropomorphistic tendency” of the LXX is “not strong enough to make itself felt consistently.” The theme of the translation of anthropomorphisms in the LXX has been recently revisited in the context of the theology of the LXX. The ongoing discussion makes clear that, to many researchers, the question of LXX’S stance towards anthropomorphisms reveals further questions regarding the language, cultural identity and ideology of the translator. Yet, a priori prescriptive ideas often transpire research about LXX’S presumed anti-anthropomorphism. In this optics, every deviance is considered exegesis, every anthropomorphism translated non-literally an anti-anthropomorphism. I wish to analyse the translation of the divine “nose” (אף) in the LXX-Pentateuch; all instances in the Pentateuch where God’s אף appears are translated in a non-literal way in the LXX. This consistency has been understood as an anti-anthropomorphism, avoiding God’s humanlike nose through a consistent non-literal rendering. I propose to focus on the lexeme θυµ- as a translation of the Hebrew אַף. In doing so, I hope to show, firstly, how the LXX draws on Classical Greek imagery, where θυμός functions as a stormy wind, and simultaneously as the emotion anger. This ambiguity makes θυμός an especially apt equivalent for אַף. Secondly, I intend to explore the “neologism μακρόθυμος” (Tov, 1999), as equivalent for the expression ארך אפים. This exploration will set out how the LXX ‘reinvents’ the concept of μακροθυμία, against its usual usage as “perseverance” (e.g. Sortes Astrampsychi 90,7). The LXX, I argue, supplements the idea of and “perseverance” with an insistence on the retention of anger, closely related to Egyptian ethics of anger-retention (e.g. Teaching of Ani 22:8-9; cf. I. Köhler, 2021; A. Erman, 1934). Accordingly, I hope to further develop the thesis set out by A. Bellantuono (2022) in showing how the LXX does not merely change μακροθυμία from perseverance to mercy (as she holds), but rather redirects the attention to the lexeme θυµ- in using μακρόθυμος as “slow to anger”. Next, I want to show LXX’S understanding of μακρόθυμος transpires later Greek uses of the term, paying special attention to texts as Hermas Mand. 5 (33-34) and Oxyrynchus Pap. 403.10 (2 Baruch), where controlling one’s anger fuses the notion of “perseverance” with LXX’S notion of temporality as “retaining anger”. In sum, my goal is to demonstrate how 1) the lexeme θυµ- figures as an apt translation of the Hebrew אַף; 2) how, consequently, this non-literal translation does not represent an anti-anthropomorphism, but rather an idiomatic translation incorporating established imagery; and 3) how the LXX-neologism μακρόθυμος further develops the notion of μακροθυμία and transpires later Greek writings. As such, I hold, the translator uses past imagery, reinvents and leaves a trace – a translator between tradition and innovation.