Old Greek Job (og Job) is by one sixth shorter than its mt counterpart, which most scholars attribute to the translator, not to a shorter Vorlage. Most arguments however, are circular, since they rely on an evaluation of the translation technique, which is difficult to determine with an unknown Vorlage of the translation. This paper presents a way of sidestepping this problem, by employing the Idiolect Test. In a study, Hebrew idiolect items were compiled and studied for their distribution within mt Job. Those items hint at a specific language use of one author, or of a small group of authors. The result shows that there is no mt Job idiolect coinciding with the non-translated passages of the og version. This supports the majority opinion: the og translator worked from a long Vorlage and was responsible for the omissions.
CoxC. E.“Methodological Issues in the Exegesis of lxx Job” in CoxC. E. (ed.) VI Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Jerusalem 1986 (SCSiS 23; Atlanta1987) pp. 79-89(en).
HatchE.Essays in Biblical Greek (Studies on the Value and Use of the Septuagint on the Meanings of Words and Psychological Terms in Biblical Greek on Quotations from the Septuagint on Origen’s Revision of Job and on the Text of Ecclesiasticus; Amsterdam1970) (en).
JoostenJ.“L’excédent massoretique du livre de Jérémie et l’hébreu post-classique” in J.Joosten and J.-S.Rey (eds.) Conservatism and Innovation in the Hebrew Language of the Hellenistic Period: Proceedings of a Fourth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls & Ben Sira (stdj73; Leiden2008) pp. 93-108.
KüchlerM.“Gott und seine Weisheit in der Septuaginta (Ijob 28; Spr 8)” in J.Gnilka and H.-J.Klauck (eds.) Monotheismus und Christologie: Zur Gottesfrage im hellenistischen Judentum und im Urchristentum (QD 131; Freiburg im Breisgau1992) pp. 118-143(ger).
StippH.-J.“Broadening the Criteria for Clarifying the Textual History of Jeremiah 10: The Pre-Masoretic Idiolect” in K.Finsterbusch and A.Lange (eds.) Texts and contexts of Jeremiah: The exegesis of Jeremiah 1 and 10 in light of text and reception history (cbet; Leuven2016a) pp. 107-116(en).
StippH.-J.“Formulaic Language and the Formation of the Book of Jeremiah” in H.Najman and K.Schmid (eds.) Jeremiah’s scriptures: Production reception interaction and transformation (JSJ.S 173; Leiden2016b) pp. 145-165(en).
StippH.-J.“A Semi-empirical Example for the Final Touches to a Biblical Book: The Masoretic Sondergut of the Book of Jeremiah” in R.Müller and J.Pakkala (eds.) Insights into Editing in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East: What Does Documented Evidence Tell Us about the Transmission of Authoritative Texts? (CBET 84; Leuven2017) (en).