This monograph focuses on laws prescribing the death penalty in Exodus 21-22, a section of the book of Exodus also known as the “Book of the Covenant” or the “Covenant Code”. The main thesis of this study can be summarized as follows. The author argues that the Old Greek translation of Exodus subtly alters and/or excises references to the death penalty in Ex 21-22, while maintaining “superficial semantic fidelity” (pp. 2-4) to the source text. Heuristically, these subtle alterations become visible through close comparison with legal materials from the classical Greek, Egyptian, and Greco-Egyptian (i.e., Ptolemaic) traditions. Hermeneutically, the perceived changes in laws prescribing the death penalty are interpreted against the background of Jews living their lives in Ptolemaic Egypt, where the existing legal traditions would not always have been compatible with the requirements of the Covenant Code.
The research presented in this book fits in with a wider current in Septuagint research, which attempts to contextualize texts from the Septuagint corpus in their socio-cultural environment. The specific attention to legal traditions, evidenced in this volume, is comparable to the recent work of Jelle Verburg and others.[1]
In this type of research, Ptolemaic Egypt and its wealth of papyrological and epigraphic materials often take pride of place. This entails a fair share of methodological difficulties. Systematic searching of these sources, particularly inscriptions, requires some specialist knowledge.[2] Moreover, documentary sources on Ptolemaic Egypt are often incomplete and, sometimes, difficult to interpret. Scholars will frequently have to rely on their own or others’ interpretations to fill in the blanks in the documentary record. Literary sources are usually more readily accessible, but bring with them their own problems of historical and literary interpretation. Thus, researchers need to be prepared to acquire a wide range of skills in order to work with these materials. To judge from the volume at hand, Korytko has managed to navigate these pitfalls in a commendable way.
The volume is divided into five chapters. The first chapter is devoted to methodological considerations. It addresses the text-critical, hermeneutical, and historical difficulties inherent in the study of the Septuagint and the Ptolemaic legal system. This is followed by a useful overview of the death penalty in classical Greek, Egyptian and Ptolemaic law.
The second chapter is of central importance to the volume as a whole. It discusses the terminology and phrasing of Greek legal texts concerning the death penalty, with due attention to the different genres (e.g. law vs. oratory) in which these texts appear. Korytko draws on earlier work done by Essam Safty,[3] but supplements this with ample additional material. A number of important conclusions are reached concerning Greek terminology for the death penalty, e.g. on the semantics and pragmatics of the verbs ἀποκτείνω, τελευτάω and θανατόω. On pp. 70-79, the discussion of adverbial θανάτῳ could be improved on: in the opinion of this reviewer, insufficient attention is paid to the syntactic differences between the passages under discussion (e.g. the presence of modifiers and/or the preposition ἐν). Nevertheless, the author’s main conclusion still stands that, among the verbs ἀποκτείνω, τελευτάω and θανατόω, only the latter refers to the formal death penalty in a legally binding context. Another important topic concerns the pragmatic difference between the use of the imperative and the future tense in Ptolemaic legal texts. Korytko argues that the future indicative conveys certainty and finality, whereas the imperative is used for pronouncements that are subject to other legal rulings and considerations and, consequently, “may or may not be followed” (p. 105). This distinction has direct consequences for the interpretation of many of the commandments in Exodus 21-22. It is no surprise, then, that this thesis is developed at length and, in the opinion of this reviewer, quite convincingly.
In the third chapter, the author discusses five references to the death penalty in Exodus 21, viz., Ex 21:15.17 (LXX 22:16); 21:12-14; 21:16 (LXX 21:17); 21:20-21; 21:29-30.32. In each instance, the translation choices of the Exodus translator are carefully evaluated in light of parallel texts and the Greek, Egyptian, and Ptolemaic legal traditions. Some of the author’s observations in this chapter could have benefited from a more detailed linguistic analysis. For example, on pp. 115-118 it is suggested that the present tense τύπτει in Ex 21:15, in a discussion of parental abuse, refers to repeated violence and not to isolated incidents. A quick search in the TLG database hints that the verb τύπτω may, in fact, be biased towards present-stem forms (e.g. τύπτει: 433 hits; ἔτυψε(ν) 303 hits; τύπτειν: 828 hits; τύψαι: 187 hits). While this does not invalidate Korytko’s analysis of Ex 21:15, it does suggest that the lexical aspect of the verb may not have been sufficiently taken into account. Likewise, on p. 148 the author appeals to a semantic distinction between the aorist imperative and the present imperative that does not always stand up to scrutiny, especially in light of recent research.[4]
The fourth chapter turns to four instances of the death penalty in Exodus 22, viz., Ex 22:2 (LXX 22:3); 22:17 (LXX 22:18); Ex 22:18 (LXX 22:19); Ex 22:19 (LXX 22:20). Some of these passages are notoriously difficult to interpret in their Greek form. It is worthy of note that Korytko proposes a novel interpretation for three of them. For Ex 22:2 (LXX 22:3), it is argued on the basis of a meticulous analysis of parallel texts that the verb ὑπάρχω takes a legal-technical meaning “apply to”. If this interpretation is correct, the passage would restrict the applicability of the death penalty for burglary, since, as the author translates, “[i]f it (= the death penalty) is not applied to him, let him be sold in place of the theft” (p. 162). In Ex 22:18 (LXX 22:19), the author argues that the Greek translation moves this legal ruling from the sphere of sexuality to animal husbandry: in the author’s view, it no longer calls for the death penalty as punishment for bestiality, but rather prescribes the killing of wild animals that mate with their domesticated kin and thus interfere with carefully regulated breeding processes. Finally, in Ex 22:19 (LXX 22:20), Korytko interprets θυσιάζω as referring specifically to those who officiate at sacrificial ceremonies, and not to general participants. Again, this would moderate the severity of a law demanding the death penalty for participating in idolatrous sacrifices.
As noted above, Korytko is well aware of the methodological pitfalls that are connected to the often fragmentary nature of the evidence. Many of his interpretations are based on inferences, and in most cases it is hard to unambiguously prove influence from Ptolemaic legal traditions in the Greek Exodus, as the author readily admits (p. 14). As a result, the discussion regularly points to possible biases (e.g. “Giving Athens a priority is a bias in this study,” p. 23) or to the speculative nature of the argument (e.g. p. 102, 142). While the lack of hard and fast results may frustrate some readers, Korytko’s methodological candor and prudence are to be commended.
Chapter five draws together the main conclusions and implications of the research. In it, the author attempts to connect the translation choices observed in Exodus 21-22 to possible readerships of the Greek Covenant Code. The observed softening of laws requiring the death penalty for whoever brings an Israelite into slavery, or for any Israelite who participates in idolatrous sacrificial ceremonies, may well be related to the lived experience of Jews in Ptolemaic Egypt, as the author suggests. More thought-provokingly, the author also explores the possibility of other readerships for the Greek Covenant Code, such as non-Jewish readers or even Ptolemaic legal scribes. At one point, the thought is even entertained that the laws of the Covenant Code might have circulated independently (p. 183). This touches upon one of the fundamental questions in the field of Septuagint Studies, regarding the status and the original readership of Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures, and may be the most controversial aspect of the author’s thesis.
In conclusion, this volume succeeds in presenting and arguing a thought-provoking thesis, on the basis of an admirable command of the source material. It presents novel interpretations of several passages in the Greek Covenant Code. Even if some of its interpretations remain speculative, they deserve to be received and discussed by a wide scholarly audience. It is to be hoped that the author’s research on the influence of Ptolemaic legal traditions in the Septuagint bears further fruit.
Notes
[1] J. Verburg, “The LXX of the Law of Deposit in Exodus 22:6-14,” in Journal of Septuagint and Cognate Studies 51 (2018) 66-83.
[2] See J.K. Aitken, No Stone Unturned. Greek Inscriptions and Septuagint Vocabulary, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns (2014).
[3] E. Safty, “Les principales catégories de crimes passibles de la peine capitale dans le droit attique aux temps des orateurs,” in Cahiers des études anciennes 33 (1997) 161-172.
[4] See, for example, the essays collected in S.E. Runge & C.J. Fresch (eds.), The Greek Verb Revisited. A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, Bellingham: Lexham Press (2016).