Textual Criticism, Translation Studies, and Symmachus’s Version in the Book of Job

The late second century CE translator/reviser Symmachus took a very different approach to the versions of his predecessor Aquila. His renderings do not appear to have survived in Jewish circles but were much admired by early Christian scholars, thanks to their preservation in Origen’s Hexapla. However, for textual critics of the Hebrew Bible Symmachus’ free approach has limited his value since his readings cannot be easily retroverted, unlike those of Aquila or Theodotion. In the case of the book of Job,althoughSymmachus’“transformations”(touseatermfromDescriptiveTransla-tion Studies) differ in nature from the freedoms observed in OG Job, while rejecting the narrow isomorphism of Aquila and Theodotion he nevertheless adheres quite closely to his Hebrew Vorlage. This offers the possibility of identifying elements significant for textual criticism in his rendering, including variant reading traditions or a different consonantal text.


Introduction
Since Textus focuses on textual criticism, it may seem questionable to offer a contribution on the fragmentary renderings of a famously free translator in a notoriously difficult Hebrew book. Can Symmachus (Sym.) offer anything to the text-critical study of Job? In the past I have argued that modern com-mentators should take the 'Three' Jewish Greek revisers more seriously in this respect.1 However, in contrast to his predecessors Aquila and Theodotion, Sym.'s approach to rendering his Hebrew Vorlage is far less predictable. Such inconsistency produces attractive renderings that were much admired in antiquity, but creates problems for using his version in textual criticism because it is difficult to retrovert his readings.

The Use of Ancient Versions in Textual Criticism
Despite the Dead Sea discoveries in the mid-twentieth century, the role of the versions (LXX, Targum, Peshitta, Vulgate) in biblical textual criticism remains a significant one because, in contrast to the manuscripts from the Dead Sea, these ancient versions are complete rather than fragmentary. The LXX version has particular value in that certain books in the corpus were translated before many of the Qumran scrolls were copied; furthermore, they were produced in the Jewish diaspora in Egypt. Thus, they could in theory reflect textual traditions varying from the MT.2 At the same time, all versions are translations, and therefore at one remove from the Hebrew text. This inevitably limits their usefulness for text-critical purposes.
To use the LXX in textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible entails reconstruction of the underlying Hebrew of the translators, a technique referred to as retroversion. Retroversion has to be based on systematic study of the tendencies of individual translators in rendering Hebrew.3 Statistical study of renderings in different books of the LXX Pentateuch was developed from the 1950s by the Finnish school, aided by the critical editing of the text by Rahlfs and the Göttingen Unternehmen. This was a significant step in this regard as it avoided The view of Anneli Aejmelaeus back in 1989, that the widely used term "translation technique" is unhelpful since the work of the LXX translators is "characterized by intuition and spontaneity more than conscious deliberation and technique," is still a valid one; "Translation Technique and the Intention of the Translators," in On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays, rev. and exp., CBET 50 (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 60. See also the essay from 1998 in the same volume, "What we talk about when we talk about translation technique," 205-222, which argues for a rounded approach combining linguistic, statistical, and theological study. the more impressionistic or "cherry-picking" approach of older scholarship to the texts. The advent of computers enabled the alignment of the Hebrew and Greek texts for comparison-the CATSS project.4 Although the categorisation of individual books as "literal" or "free" is too broad to be very helpful,5 clearly some books are less amenable to isomorphic alignment or statistical analysis than others. Their unpredictable renderings are often ascribed to lack of competence in Hebrew or to exegetical interference, sometimes both. It is only recently that LXX scholars have looked to the field of modern Translation Studies, especially Gideon Toury's Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS). Such approaches provide insights into the apparent "deviations" from more obvious renderings of the Hebrew text, to ascertain which may be attributable to variants in the Vorlage and which are due to either exegesis or "transformations" required by the process of translation itself.6 One of the pioneering studies in this respect is that of Theo A.W. van der Louw's Transformations in the Septuagint, which takes soundings from chapters from three different LXX books-Gen 2, Isa 1, and Prov 6. A particular contribution of modern Translation Studies to Septuagint studies is to provide a more sympathetic perspective on the translators' negotiation of difficult texts by taking seriously the overall effect of the rendering. One of the many contributions the field of Translation Studies offers to biblical scholars is to remind us that the original text is itself polyvalent, especially in the case of poetry.7 It emphasises both the possibility and legitimacy of different 4 Computer Assisted Tools for Septuagint/Scriptural Study. 5 For an early and nuanced discussion of the issues of categorising translations, see James Barr, The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations, MSU 15 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979). 6 Theo A.W. van der Louw, Transformations in the Septuagint: Towards an Interaction of Septuagint Studies and Translation Studies, CEBT 47 (Leuven: Peeters, 2007). Responding to James Barr's claim that "freedom in translation is not a tangible method, so suitably to be grasped and comprehended" (Barr, Typology of Literalism, 7), Van der Louw counters that one purpose of his own study is "to show that 'free renderings' can be grasped and comprehended. Although transformations were not always employed consistently, they often have a logic in their own right"; , 22, who insists on "the finally ungraspable nature of the literary text" because of its own multiple meanings even before any attempt at translation is made, and the danger of "a recurrent line of argument which conjures up a fantasy of perfect translation-of a work that is miraculously the same as its source despite renderings, shaped by the expectations of the target readership, as well as the personal choices and education of the translator. This leads us to a better appreciation of the translated books of the LXX corpus as multidimensional cultural artefacts, rather than primarily sources for us to plunder for text-critical purposes or to criticise when they do not conform to our own expectations of a competent rendering of the Hebrew.8 Too often in biblical scholarship one still encounters the phrase, "the meaning of the Hebrew," as if this was obvious and unambiguous. Such attitudes also overlook the fact that our own perceptions of the text's meaning have been shaped by two millennia of scholarship and translations. The Old Greek (OG) translations clearly became self-standing Greek texts very shortly after their creation, even if some could be used as cribs to the Hebrew for a few readers. Even in the case of books we regard as less close to the details and order of the Hebrew wording (such as LXX Isaiah, LXX Proverbs, and OG Job), their readers would have accepted that they were faithful representations of the overall message to the present generation in its own cultural context.9 existing in the changed circumstances of a different language and culture." Lawrence Venuti makes a similar point: "The source text is never accessible in some direct, unmediated manner; it is always already mediated, whether it is read in the source language or translated into the receiving language"; The Translation Studies Reader, 3rd ed. (London: Routledge, 2012), 497. 8 As an example of a now outdated attitude towards LXX Isaiah, see the remarks of R.R. Ottley in a study that is in other respects still valuable: "The translators' mistakes in reading (however ample their excuse) are so numerous, ranging in their effect from minute points to the wreck of whole sentences, that their view cannot carry weight as to the real Hebrew text of their day"; The Book of Isaiah according to the Septuagint (Codex Alexandrinus) I. Introduction and Translation with a Parallel Version from the Hebrew (London: C.J. Clay, 1904), viii. 9 In this regard, see the illuminating discussion by Lawrence Venuti of "instrumental" versus "hermeneutic" models of translation; "Genealogies of Translation Theory: Jerome," in Translation Studies Reader, 483-502. The instrumental model treats translation as "the reproduction or transfer of an invariant which the source's text contains or causes, typically described as its form, its meaning, or its effect," while the hermeneutic model "treats translation as an interpretation of the source text whose form, meaning, and effect are seen as variable, subject to inevitable transformation during the translating process"; "Genealogies," 483. "In the hermeneutic model, any correspondence is partial and contingent: partial because it is incomplete in recreating the source text and slanted towards the receiving language and culture; contingent because it is fixed by one among other possible interpretations, each of which establishes a criterion of accuracy that varies among receiving cultural constituencies, social situations, and historical moments"; "Genealogies," 484. Venuti advocates the hermeneutic model as "more sophisticated … comprehensive … ethical," (485).
However, even if we can acknowledge the renderings of "freer" LXX translations as both theologically meaningful and possessing literary merit for their early readers, in our role as textual critics we may nevertheless feel frustration at these books' apparent lack of utility in witnessing to their Hebrew Vorlage. Greek Job is particularly difficult. The lengthy Hebrew text of Job is poetic and contains many hapax legomena. Unvocalised and perhaps lacking an established reading tradition (since it was neither part of the Torah nor the Prophets), it must have presented a considerable challenge to the translator, who condensed, omitted, and embellished the content in order to produce a rendering acceptable within his community-as demonstrated by by Marieke Dhont in her recent monograph.10 The apparently "missing" stanzas11 in OG Job vis à vis the Hebrew were later supplied by Origen in his Hexapla from a later and more isomorphic rendering, probably that of Theodotion.12 The resulting clash of translational styles in Omission and abridgement are not necessarily signs of lack of comprehension. It should not be ruled out that, in the case of "freer" LXX translations, the translator had an eye to what would work in the target language and culture, and was also prepared to leave out what he considered redundant or unnecessary. In modern literary translations it is not uncommon for sentences or sections to be left out of the translation, often for commercial reasons: the translator or publisher fears that the translated book will be too long, or not appreciated in its new context. An example would be Hans Fallada's long novel Wolf unter Wölfen, published in 1937, whose original English translator Philip Owens heavily abridged the book; Wolf Among Wolves (London: Putnam, 1938). The "missing" material has since been restored by Thorsten Carstensen and Nicholas Jacobs in the 2010 edition published by Melville House. Carstensen explains in an afterword that the motivation behind many of Owens's earlier omissions seems to have been his judgment that the sections in question were too focused on the inner motivations of the characters and did not advance the plot. Ironically, some reviewers have since expressed a preference for the 1938 abridged version of the novel. 12 For the source of the asterised lines in Job the ecclesiastical text of Job has been termed "a genetic monstrosity hybridized from apples and oranges" by Peter Gentry.13 As in other books, Aquila and Sym. also produced their own versions of Hebrew Job, which were culled from Origen's Hexapla and preserved only very fragmentarily in the margins of manuscripts or in patristic commentaries.14 The textual critic can easily employ the readings of Theodotion and Aquila in Job, owing to their isomorphic approach and tendency to standardise renderings (or hazard "etymological" ones, in the case of hapaxes), since these features aid retroversion to a presumed Vorlage.
In the case of the readings to Job from Sym., both the brevity of the preserved readings and the unpredictability of his translational choices make the task of retroversion a hard one. Yet his version can still yield interesting results for textual criticism.

Examples from Symmachus in the Book of Job15
The following examples from what remains of Sym.'s renderings of Job demonstrate first of all-as in other books-his confident use of educated Greek and his desire to remain closer to the Hebrew text than OG Job without resorting to isomorphism.16 In spite of the difficulties Sym.'s style of rendering presents to retroversion and thus to using his version for textual criticism of Hebrew Job, in a few instances it is clear that Sym. knew of a different reading tradition from the MT, and in one or two, he recognised a slightly different consonantal text. The first three examples note some instances where Sym. represents the Hebrew faithfully without resorting to isomorphism or stereotyping, and yet produces a rendering that differs from the OG's own relatively free handling of its Vorlage.

Stylistic Improvement of Syntax and Vocabulary
Job 2:11fg "They arranged together to come to commiserate with him and to comfort him." OG καὶ παρεγένοντο πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁμοθυμαδὸν τοῦ παρακαλέσαι καὶ ἐπισκέψασθαι αὐτόν "And they came to him with one accord to comfort and show concern about him." σ´συνετάξαντο γὰρ ὁμοῦ ἐλθόντες συμπαθῆσαι αὐτῷ καὶ παραμυθήσασθαι αὐτόν Sym. "For they arranged, having come together, to sympathise with him and console him." Dhont notes that the use of the articular infinitive is a feature of Koine, as is also the meaning of παρακαλέω as "to comfort."17 In non-biblical Greek ἐπισκέπτομαι can have the sense of visiting the sick,18 so is used appropriately in this context. However, in LXX translations the subject of ἐπισκέπτομαι tends to be God rather than humans; he "visits" them with benevolent attention.
In contrast to the OG, Sym. uses γάρ instead of καί, and an aorist participle for the first of three Hebrew infinitive constructs. Sym. also uses ὁμοῦ, which is not used in the translated books of the LXX corpus apart from one place in an asterised addition to Job (34:29), but occurs in the non-translated works (2, 3, 4Maccabees; παραμυθέομαι also occurs only once, in 2 Macc 15:9. Sym. may have avoided παρακαλέω and ἐπισκέπτομαι because the Koine and "biblical" senses they had acquired did not in his view match the context. He preferred more literary-sounding verbs in this instance.

Sym. Closer to the Hebrew than OG but Smoother than Theodotion and Aquila
Job 1:16b "Fire of God/a mighty fire fell from the sky and burned up the flock." OG Πῦρ ἔπεσεν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ κατέκαυσεν τὰ πρόβατα "Fire fell from the sky and burned up the sheep." ⟨σ´⟩ πῦρ παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ κατηνέχθη; σ´ἀπέκτεινεν Sym. "Fire from God descended … it slew …" The OG's "fire from heaven/the sky" is discussed by Dhont, who observes that this is an imprecise rendering influenced by similar phrases in other LXX books.21 Aquila and Theodotion are recorded as having the predictably literal rendering πῦρ θεοῦ, "fire of God." Sym. is also closer to the Hebrew in this respect, but provides a smoother and less Hebraic rendering by avoiding a straight genitive by means of παρά. Καταφέρομαι appears a few times in LXX  is not a standard item piece of clothing in the Hebrew Bible. It is associated with the high priest in Exod 38 and 39, and Lev 8. It is worn by Samuel as a child, a prophet, and a ghost; by Saul and Jonathan; by virgin princesses (2 Sam 13:8); by princes (Ezek 26:16); by David bringing up the ark (1 Chron 15:27); by Ezra the priest (Ezra 9:3, 5) and by Job's high-ranking visitors (Job 2:12) as well as by Job himself here. It is rendered by a variety of Greek words in the LXX corpus, including τὰ ἱμάτια as it is here, though this is a term without special connotations. In this verse both Theodotion and Aquila employ their standard equivalents for ‫מ‬ ‫ע‬ ‫י‬ ‫ל‬ : Theodotion uses ἐπενδύτης "robe," as in 2 Sam 13:8, and Aquila has ἔνδυμα, "garment," often found in the LXX for ‫ל‬ ‫ב‬ ‫ו‬ ‫ש‬ .22 However, here Sym. has ἐφεστρίς, a word that does not appear in the LXX, NT, Josephus, or Philo. According to LSJ, ἐφεστρίς refers in Xenophon to an upper garment, and in Athenaeus to a philosopher's mantle, though in Plutarch to a soldier's cloak. Whether Sym. intended to indicate something about Job's social standing by the use of this term is unclear. The historian Herodian, a contemporary of Sym., uses the term three times, of fine clothes and of praetorians wearing civilian dress (Ab Excessu Divi Marci 4.2.3; 7.11, 2, 3), so it was not confined to elite attire. One of the Suda's lexical comments suggests the word was sometimes associated with afflictions.23 22 See Field, Origenis Hexaplorum fragmenta ad loc., and Ziegler's apparatus for the attributions in the witnesses to Aquila and Sym. 23

Higher Register Lexical Choice
Ἐφεστρίς: ἱμάτιον Ῥωμαϊκόν. λέγεται δὲ καὶ μανδύης καὶ βίρρον· ἅτινα ἐν ὀνείρῳ βλεπόμενα θλίψεις σημαίνουσιν; A. Adler, Suidae Lexicon, 4 vols., Lexicographi Graeci 1 [(Leipzig: Teubner, 1928-1935, accessed online at Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. as "foolishness," the overall sense is "nor did he act foolishly towards God," which is rather different from the OG. Presumably the foolish action Sym. envisaged would have been for Job to blame God for his troubles: compare the reading of the 'Hebrew' (ἑβρ´) version preserved in the catena tradition: οὐκ ἐμέμψατο τῷ θεῷ, "he did not blame God/find fault with God." However, Sym.'s verb ἀφρονεύομαι is an unusual one, equivalent to ἀφρονέω, but unattested apart from LXX OG αὐτὸς δὲ27 διὰ τί τούτων ἐπισκοπὴν οὐ πεποίηται; "yet for what reason has he not carried out visitation on these people?" (Contrast NETS "and he, why has he not paid these a visit?") θ´… ἀφροσύνην "… senselessness" α´καὶ θεὸς οὐ θήσει σπουδήν "and shall God not make haste?" σ´ὁ δὲ θεὸς οὐκ ἐμποιεῖ μωρίαν (Ziegler); ὁ δὲ θεὸς οὐκ ἐμποιεῖ τιμωρίαν (Meade) "yet God does not cause folly" OR "yet God does not carry out punishment" Here the OG's rendering is quite unexpected. It seems to be a contextual rendering within the broader passage in which Job is complaining that the wicked do terrible things but God does not punish them. 28 We have only a single word here from Theodotion, but he apparently picks up the rendering of The only witness to Theodotion's and Aquila's readings here is the Syrohexapla, but they are easily reconstructed in Greek.
The original form of Sym.'s reading here is debated. For Job 24:12c Field gives Sym. as ὁ δὲ θεὸς οὐκ ἐμπνέει (s. ἐμποιεῖ30) μωρίαν. Ziegler's apparatus at Job 24:12c gives ὁ δὲ θεὸς οὐκ ἐμποιεῖ μωρίαν, "yet God does not cause folly", noting that manuscript 250 places τι before μωρίαν and the Catena group minus 250 have ἐμπνέει. However, John Meade has checked the Kollationen of hexaplaric fragments made by Ursula and Dieter Hagedorn and notes that manuscripts 250 and 3005 both have τιμωρίαν (creating a rhetorical question, "Yet does God not carry out vengeance?"). Meade cites Jerome's et Deus inultum abire non patitur in support of this reading, and argues that Sym. understood ‫ת‬ ‫פ‬ ‫ל‬ ‫ה‬ here as derived from piel ‫פ‬ ‫ל‬ ‫ל‬ , meaning "to pronounce judgment."31 ὁ δὲ θεὸς οὐκ ἐμποιεῖ τιμωρίαν would make good sense in Greek and also fits the context. However, it creates a mismatch between how Sym. understands ‫ִתּ‬ ‫ְפ‬ ‫ָל‬ ‫ה‬ in Job 1:22 (as "foolishness") and in 24:12 (as "retribution"). A consistent understanding of ‫ִתּ‬ ‫ְפ‬ ‫ָל‬ ‫ה‬ in both verses as "folly" would support the originality of the reading ὁ δὲ θεὸς οὐκ ἐμποιεῖ μωρίαν, and the statement "yet God does not cause folly." In context the rendering would imply that the wicked are responsible for their own actions: God does not force them to act foolishly in this way.32 However, given Sym.'s unpredictability in rendering, the other reading (preferred by Meade) is also possible.

3.5
Treatment of Metaphors Metaphors in poetry are often a challenge for translators. They may be rendered by using a simile to clarify the sense, as Sym. does here.

Job 24:16
NJPS "by day they shut themselves in" (lit. "sealed themselves up") ※ ἡμέρας ἐσφράγισαν ἑαυτούς σ´ὡς ἐν σφραγῖδι κρύψουσιν ἑαυτούς The OG does not provide a rendering of this verse. The translation supplied by Origen from Theodotion is ※ ἡμέρας ἐσφράγισαν ἑαυτούς, close to the MT: "by 30 On the basis of Syh Critical Edition,[62][63] According to the Syrohexapla as retroverted by Field (Origenis Hexaplorum fragmenta, 1:245 n. 17), Aquila rendered this phrase as καὶ θεὸς οὐ θήσει σπουδήν [< ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܛ‬ ‫ܝ‬ ‫ܠ‬ 熏 ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ], which Field compared with the Harklean version at Mark 6:25. Field believed this reconstructed reading was probably to be understood in the sense, "and shall God not show diligence?" However, where the LXX and Aquila use σπουδή, it seems always to be in the sense of "haste" rather than "care." day they sealed themselves up" (NETS). Sym. prefers to change it into a simile: ὡς ἐν σφραγῖδι κρύψουσιν ἑαυτούς, "as with a seal they shall hide themselves."33

3.6
Building on Earlier Renderings Though Sym. often goes his own way, especially against Aquila's isomorphism and standardised equivalents, he may also build on the precedent of earlier renderings.

Job 24:17
ὅτι ὁμοθυμαδὸν τὸ πρωὶ αὐτοῖς σκιὰ θανάτου, ※ ὅτι ἐπιγνώσεται ταραχὰς σκιᾶς θανάτου. σ´ ἐὰν γένηται αὐτοῖς ὄρθρος σκιὰ θανάτου: φωραθεὶς γὰρ ἀνύπαρκτος ἔσται σκιασθεὶς34 θανάτῳ In a continuation of the passage describing the attitude of the wicked, this rather opaque Hebrew verse is rendered interpretatively by NRSV as "For deep darkness is morning to all of them; for they are friends with the terrors of deep darkness;" and perhaps more effectively by NJPS as "For all of them morning is darkness; It is then that they discern the terror of darkness." There is no OG translation for this verse (or for several around it), since the translator jumped straight to the curse in 24:18c. However, the asterised Theodotion text (cited above) supplies a rendering that NETS understands to mean "because with one accord the morning is death's shadow to them, because he will recognise the troubles of death's shadow." Sym.'s rendering does not seem very close to the Hebrew; "If dawn comes to them, [it is] death's shadow: for once discovered, it will be non-existent, overshadowed by death." His equivalent of itself. Although Sym. does not often accept Aquila's equivalences, in this case he did, employing both the nominal form ἀνυπαρξία and the adjective ἀνύπαρκτος.37

3.7
Job 24:25 In the following example consisting of two separate fragments, we see Sym. using particles and a preposition (ἀλλὰ νῦν … ὑπέρ) in a sensitive manner to convey the apparent sense. However, he also witnesses to a non-MT tradition of vocalisation. , "and my word would be considered before God"), demonstrating that this particular vocalisation of the Hebrew was more widely established (rather than confined to Sym.'s circle) in the late second century CE.

3.8
Job 25:3-4 In the following passage Sym. follows the Hebrew more closely than the OG, and possibly indulges in some wordplay. , "his light," by ἐπίταγμα is intriguing: the word may denote an understanding as "command" from the supposed etymological connection of ‫א‬ ‫וֹ‬ ‫ר‬ with Torah commonly found in the later Jewish revisers,47 but taking it as "detachment of troops" would link with the idea of armies in the previous line. Since we do not know how Sym. rendered the rest of the line, it is hard to be sure whether any wordplay was intended.
For v. 4b we do have an entire line of Sym. preserved in the Catena tradition, "by what means shall one given birth by woman be clean?" However, the form ἄρρυπος is attested rather later than Sym.'s time, and one wonders whether this is the original form of the reading.48 42 Dhont notes that the rather poetic word βροτός is used only in OG Job in the LXX corpus; Style and Context,41. 43 Kepper and Witte note that this is a neologism in the LXX, found also in Tob 12:9; "Hiob," 2102. 44 See Dhont on the higher register of the OG in its use of the optative that was declining in Koine; Style and Context,[150][151] Meade, Critical Edition, 74-75, argues convincingly for the singular form against the majority reading in the plural favoured by Ziegler. 46 Meade's Critical Edition prefers στρατιῶν over the variant στρατιωτῶν, "soldiers", found in manuscripts 256-740. 47 See According to a search on TLG, ἄρρυπος is first attested in the Apostolic Constitutions of the fourth century (ἵνα δυνώμεθα προσεύχεσθαι καθαρᾷ τῇ καρδίᾳ καὶ ἀρύπῳ, 2.53), and in the Acts of Philip in the same century (in the phrase καὶ περιποίησαι σεαυτῷ βίον σεμνὸν καὶ ἄρυπον, 119.9-10).
σ´ὥσπερ ἤμην ἐν ἡμέραις νεότητός μου ὁπότε περιέφρασσεν ὁ θεὸς τὴν σκηνήν μου The sense of the first half of the verse in Hebrew is only clear from the context: Job is evidently looking back to a better period of his life, when God was with him. The literal sense of the word ‫ָח‬ ‫ְר‬ ‫ִפּ‬ ‫י‬ is debated, since there are two homonymous roots ‫ח‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ף‬ . DCH (3:320) lists this verse under the sense "reproach," implying that Job is reflecting back to the days of his youth, presumably seen as a period of foolish behaviour!57 Another possibility is "autumn," i.e. prime, a period of personal fruitfulness, as BDB (358a) has it; c.f. HALOT also associates it with ‫ח‬ ֹ ‫ֶר‬ ‫ף‬ "winter" but via the sense of "early time," hence "youth." Either way, most translators identify the expression as a metaphor.
The notable lack of formal correspondence between the Hebrew and the OG in this verse is observed by Dhont.58 The OG misses the metaphor in the first half of the line, and though ‫ס‬