οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ διαλεγόμενοι πρὸς Φαραω βασιλέα Αἰγύπτου καὶ ἐξήγαγον τοὺς υἱοὺς Ισραηλ ἐξ Αἰγύπτου αὐτὸς Ααρων καὶ Μωυσῆς (Exodus 6:27 LXX)
הֵ֗ם הַֽמְדַבְּרִים֙ אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֣ה מֶֽלֶךְ־מִצְרַ֔יִם לְהֹוצִ֥יא אֶת־בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מִמִּצְרָ֑יִם ה֥וּא מֹשֶׁ֖ה וְאַהֲרֹֽן׃
Introductory Reflection
In this seemingly straightforward identification of Moshe and Aharon as divine agents before Parʿo, we discover a fascinating translation decision in the Septuagint. The Hebrew employs a compound nominal clause with participial and infinitive constructions, whereas the Greek reorganizes the structure using indicative verbs and coordination. This verse offers a window into how participial identity statements in Hebrew are rendered through more fluid narrative devices in Greek, with subtle shifts in agency and aspect.
Key Grammatical Transformation: Hebrew Participles and Infinitives vs. Greek Indicatives
The Masoretic text relies on two Hebrew participles — הַמְדַבְּרִים and the infinitive לְהֹוצִיא — to describe ongoing identity and purpose. The Septuagint translates this into two distinct indicative clauses: one with a present participle construction (οἱ διαλεγόμενοι) and one with an aorist indicative (ἐξήγαγον). This morphosyntactic transformation is not mere stylistic variation; it reorients the Hebrew participial continuity into Greek eventive action, with theological implications regarding divine agency and timing.
Hebrew-Greek Morphological Comparison
| Hebrew Word | Greek Translation | Grammatical Notes | Translation Technique |
|---|---|---|---|
| הֵם | οὗτοί | Hebrew pronoun (3mp) → Greek demonstrative (nom. masc. pl.) | Functional equivalence |
| הַמְדַבְּרִים | οἱ διαλεγόμενοι | Hebrew Qal participle (mp) → Greek present participle (mp nom.) | Direct participial rendering |
| אֶל־פַּרְעֹה | πρὸς Φαραω | Hebrew preposition + proper noun → Greek preposition + proper noun | Literal prepositional match |
| מֶלֶךְ־מִצְרַיִם | βασιλέα Αἰγύπτου | Construct chain → accusative noun + genitive modifier | Structural reordering for Greek syntax |
| לְהֹוצִיא | ἐξήγαγον | Infinitive (purpose) → Aorist indicative (completed action) | Aspectual reinterpretation |
| הוּא מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן | αὐτὸς Ααρων καὶ Μωυσῆς | Hebrew pronoun + proper nouns → Greek pronoun + coordinated names | Emphatic identity restated |
Nuanced Shifts and Theological Sensitivities
- Shift in Aspect: The Hebrew infinitive לְהֹוצִיא frames the action as purpose-driven, open-ended. The Greek aorist ἐξήγαγον closes the event, presenting it as historically completed — even though the actual exodus had not occurred at this narrative point.
- Pronoun Strategy: The Greek use of οὗτοί and αὐτὸς reflects stronger emphasis and identity-marking compared to the Hebrew 3mp pronoun הֵם.
- Word Order Differences: Hebrew places the identification (הֵם) and the participle (הַמְדַבְּרִים) first, while Greek follows classical Greek subject-verb order more rigidly.
- Theological Framing: Greek implies that Moshe and Aharon were not just sent to Parʿo but actually carried out the deliverance already — reflecting a more assertive divine commissioning in retrospective terms.
Reflections at the Threshold
This verse’s Greek rendering magnifies the historical role of Moshe and Aharon through syntactic certainty and completed action. In contrast, the Hebrew projects potential and commissioning. The Septuagint thus compresses purpose into fulfillment, a shift as much theological as grammatical. In observing these changes, we gain more than linguistic insight — we glimpse how sacred tradition was shaped by syntax, tense, and participle.
