1

Ideological Biases in the Greek Minor Prophets:

A Reassessment Based on the Books of Amos and Zechariah

Matthieu Richelle
FLTE / UMR 7192

Recent research in the Greek version of the Minor Prophets seems to have led to two opposite
kinds of results. On the one hand, there appears to be a wide consensus about the fact that the
work of the translator1 exhibits, most of the time, a literal approach (as imprecise as this
expression might be). When the translator proves to have used some freedom in his rendering,
it is sometimes due to stylistic considerations,2 and often in order to make the text more
intelligible.3 In other words, even the apparent variations compared to the Vorlage are often
designed to convey the original meaning of the text, as perceived by the translator: creativity
at the service of faithfulness.4
On the other hand, scholars have noticed that the theology of the translator has sometimes
influenced his work.5 This is probably to be expected, given the highly religious content of the

1
I am assuming here that the same individual was responsible for the translation of the twelve
minor prophetic books, which is of course debated.
2
Jan Joosten, “A Septuagintal Translation Technique in the Minor Prophets: The Elimination of
Verbal Repetitions,” in Interpreting Translation: Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan
Lust (ed. Florentino García Martínez and Maurice Vervenne; BETL 192; Leuven: Peeters, 2005), 217-
23.
3
Jan Joosten, “Exegesis in the Septuagint Version of Hosea,” in Intertextuality in Ugarit & Israel
(ed. Johannes C. de Moor; OtSt 40; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 62-85; Eberhard Bons, Jan Joosten, and
Stephen Kessler, Les Douze Prophètes. Osée (La Bible d’Alexandrie 23.1; Paris: Cerf, 2002), 43;
Gunnar M. Eidsvåg, The Old Greek Translation of Zechariah (VTSup 170; Leiden: Brill, 2015), 123.
4
Cécile Dogniez, “L’intertextualité dans la LXX de Zacharie 9-14,” in Interpreting Translation:
Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust (ed. Florentino García Martínez and Maurice
Vervenne; BETL 192; Leuven: Peeters, 2005), 81-96; idem, “L’arrivée du roi selon la LXX de Zacharie
9,9-17,” in La Septante en Allemagne et en France : textes de la Septante à double traduction ou à
traduction très littérale (ed. Wolfgang Kraus et Olivier Munnich; OBO 238; Fribourg/Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht/Academic Press, 2009), 217-37.
5
Jennifer M. Dines, “The Minor Prophets,” in The T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint
(ed. James Aitken; London: Bloomsbury, 2015), 438-455; esp. 447-48; see also P. Ahearne-Kroll,
“LXX/OG Zechariah 1-6 and the Portrayal of Joshua Centuries after the Restoration of the Temple,”
in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures
(ed. Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 179-92; Laurence Vianès, “Lévites
 2

prophetic books. Perhaps more surprisingly, a rising number of studies have also pointed out
ideological tendencies of a more political kind underlying the choices made by the translator.
Of course, religion and politics were often interweaven in Antiquity, but the hypothesis in
question entails a hostility of the translator towards nations and social groups even in cases
where no theological motive underlies the text. Whatever the original reason, he was
influenced by his own affinities and hostilities towards some contemporary nations or social
groups, so he perceived in the text and/or projected into it allusions to realities and ideas of
his own time. This is the hypothesis I would like to examine here. More precisely, I would
like to assess the notion that the wording of the Greek text in several passages betrays a bias
against some nations (notably the Seleucides) or some leading families (the Tobiads)
contemporary to the translator on the one hand, and pro-Hasmonean sympathies on the other.
In the limited space of this paper, I will focus on Amos and Zechariah, which seem to me to
be the books where the main evidence has been found.

1. A bias against Seleucids in the Greek version of Amos?

Insofar as the Minor Prophets contain many criticisms of the nations, whether in the so-called
oracles against the nations (Amos 1-2; Zeph 2; etc.) or in passing, and since the translation
was probably effected around the middle of the 2nd century B.C.E., not long after the
Maccabean revolt, it is perfectly conceivable that the translator would have been influenced
by his own stance towards the main political players in the political game of the region,
namely the Seleucids and the Maccabees. It is even possible that the recent (and conflictual)
history of his country would have led him to a particular stance towards the foreign nations in
general.
Most of the alleged traces of political bias against contemporary foreigners concern the
Seleucids.6 This thesis operates on the premise that Syria, especially in the book of Amos,
serves as a cypher for them, or, at least, that Syria more or less consciously evokes the

fautifs et prêtre parfait dans la LXX de Malachie 2,3-9,” in La Septante en Allemagne et en France :
Textes de la Septante à double traduction ou à traduction très littérale (ed. Wolfgang Kraus and
Olivier Munnich; OBO 238; Fribourg/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht/Academic Press, 2009),
252-66; James A. E. Mulroney, The Translation Style of Old Greek Habakkuk: Methodological
Advancement in Interpretative Studies of the Septuagint (FAT II.86; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016),
130-95.
6
Possible cases of anti-Samaritan polemic are less relevant to the present study since the criticism
concerns religious matters.
 3

Seleucids to the mind of the translator. The evidence has been analyzed by Dines in her
doctoral dissertation,7 and, more recently, by Glenny, who takes on many of Dines’ arguments
while adding new ones.8 I will review the most striking cases, rearranged in several
categories. The translator had perceived or projected criticisms against the Seleucids by way
of (1) using depreciative designations of Syria; (2) worsening descriptions of cruel treatment
of people by the Syrians; (3) alluding to their military actions and to their political allies in
negative contexts;9 (4) adding mentions of “Damascus” absent from the MT in negative
contexts.

a. Depreciative designations of Syria?

First, some designations of Syria supposedly betray a negative stance against this country.
According to Glenny, the very name Συρία, chosen to render ‫ א ֲָרם‬but “technically inaccurate,
and at best an updating of the text,” might be “an indication of anti-Syrian bias, if the contexts
support such Tendenz.”10 This does not seem likely, however, since this rendering had already
been used by the translators of the Pentateuch,11 without any hint of a derogatory connotation,
and, of course, prior to the Seleucid conflict with the Judeans.
More interesting, the Syrian people (λαὸς Συρίας) is called ἐπικλητός in Amos 1:5, which,
according to Dines and Glenny, means here “foreign” or “alien” with “a negative connotation
(like “barbarian”).12 This differs from the usual explanation, according to which, since the
corresponding expression in the MT is ‫“( ַעם־א ֲָרם קִ ָירה‬the people of Aram to Kir”) the
translator read ‫ קרא‬instead of ‫קִ ָירה‬, hence the choice of a Greek adjective meaning “called.”

7
Jennifer M. Dines, The Septuagint of Amos: A Study in Interpretation (PhD dissertation; London,
1991). This unpublished dissertation may be found at the British Library e-theses online service
(EthOS) at the following address: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.283911
(consulted 08/08/2017). See also a brief and useful summary in idem, “The Minor Prophets,” 445-48.
8
W. Edward Glenny, Finding Meaning in the Text: Translation Technique and Theology in the
Septuagint of Amos (VTSup 126; Leiden: Brill, 2009); see also idem, “Hebrew Misreadings or Free
Translation in the Septuagint of Amos?,” VT 57 (2007): 524-47.
9
Glenny also points out possible derogatory allusions to the religious influence of Syria or
Samaritans, but such cases would not unambiguously prove that the translator had an ideological
bias against Seleucids or Samaritans, since there is already a motive of another kind (religious).
10
Glenny, Meaning, 152 f.
11
Gen 28:6,7; 33,18; 35:9,26; 46:15; 48:7; Deut 26:5.
12
Dines, Amos, 62; Glenny, Meaning, 157; see also 64-67.
 4

Thus Muraoka translates λαὸς Συρίας ἐπίκλητος as “the people bearing the name of Syria.”13
The trouble is that this meaning of ἐπίκλητος is poorly attested; according to Glenny, it
appears only from the first century B.C.E., and beforehand the adjective meant “alien.”14 Yet
the picture is more complicated, because other meanings are attested before the common era,
notably “called (to)”/ “summoned,” especially in Herodotus (Hist. 7.8.1) and in Numbers
(1:16; 16:2; 26:9).15 In fact, the sense “alien” probably derives from the sense “called (from
outside)” by extension.16 In a couple of passages (Num 1:16; 16:9; 26:9), ἐπίκλητος may well
mean “appointed,” but it is also possible that the sense has derived into “famous,” as some
scholars, including Glenny himself,17 think. If so, this forms a basis for the translation “the
famous people of Syria”18 or “the important people of Syria” (NETS).
That said, one cannot rule out the possibility that ἐπίκλητος in Amos 1 :5 means “called” in
the sense of “bearing the name” (Muraoka’s choice), because, as Dines notes,19 it seems
attested in the following expression in Judg 15:19 (A): διὰ τοῦτο ἐκλήθη τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῆς
Πηγὴ ἐπίκλητος σιαγόνος (“c’est pourquoi on a donné à la source le nom de Source appelée
de la mâchoire”).20 In fact, that ἐπίκλητος meant “called” at some point of its lexical
development and that the root ‫ קרא‬means “to call” can hardly be a coincidence. In sum, it is
far from clear that the translator used ἐπίκλητος in the sense “alien” in Amos 1:5, since other
meanings are no less plausible: “famous” or “bearing the name of.”
The toponym ‫ קיר‬resurfaces in Amos 9:7 as the place of origin of the Syrians: “Did I not bring
up Israel from the land of Egypt, and the Philistines from Caphtor and the Syrians from Kir
(‫ ”?)וַאֲ ָרם ִמקִ יר‬The last expression differs in the LXX: καὶ τοὺς Σύρους ἐκ βόθρου, i.e. “and the
Syrians from a pit.” Glenny thinks that the translator manipulated the text, perhaps because he
did not understood the term ‫קִ יר‬, taking advantage of this situation to tackle the Syrians (in
fact, the Seleucids) by ascribing to them dubious origins, and making them like “sons of

13
Takamitsu Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Louvain: Peeters, 2009), 274.
14
Glenny, Meaning, 157.
15
Gilles Dorival, Les Nombres (La Bible d’Alexandrie 4; Paris: Cerf, 1994), 497-98 (note on Num
28:18).
16
Franco Montanari, The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek (ed. Madeleine Goh and Chad Schroeder;
Leiden: Brill, 2015), 771.
17
Glenny, Meaning, 64 (for Num 1:16; 26:9). Dines (Amos, 61) rules out this possibility and sticks to
the meaning “appointed.” Dorival translates “hommes de renom” in Num 16:2.
18
This is the translation adopted by Brenton (quoted by Dines, Amos, 60).
19
Dines, Amos, 60.
20
Paul Harlé, Les Juges (La Bible d’Alexandrie 7; Paris: Cerf, 1999), 216. NETS has “therefore its name
was called Spring-Summoned-by-Jawbone,” which makes little sense.
 5

Sheol.”21 He rejects Gelston’s proposal that the translator misread ‫ מקיר‬into ‫מקור‬,22 his main
objection being that it would not account for the preposition ἐκ, unless the translator
manipulated the text. But precisely, we probably have here a case of pseudo-variant, and it
would be misleading to think that any pseudo-variant stems from a desire to change the
meaning of the text: in many cases, it is just an attempt to manipulate the letters (not the
meaning) in order to find a solution to a lexical problem by the most economical means in
philological terms. This implies not changing the word altogether by discarding the letters that
it comprises, but finding a combination of letters that is close to the original combination
when the latter does not seem to make sense; in other words, the aim is to “rescue” the text.23
In the present case, perhaps the translator just proceeded as if there were two consecutive ‫מ‬
because he did not find any other solution; perhaps he worked casually and did not pay much
attention, or perhaps he had a philological rationale (he may have thought that a haplography
had occurred). Or maybe, after all, he read ‫“( ִמּבֹור‬from the pit,” as in Ps 40:3),24 although this
is less likely from a paleographical point of view (but the scroll may have been damaged).
So in order to prove that the translator wanted to inject an additional polemical connotation
into the text by his choice of words, it is necessary to demonstrate that the resulting Greek
sentence does bear a polemical sense that the translator felt was absent from the Hebrew
model. But understanding the LXX here proves quite difficult. Dines notes four possible
interpretations:
(1) God brought the Syrians “out of a pit” by delivering them from bondage. This is the
least likely. (2) He brought them “out of the pit”, i.e. Sheol, as enemies to be judged and
punished; this is just possible. (3) “From a pit” may simply characterize the Syrians as
reprobates, in the same way that DSS speak of “Sons of the pit”; this would give good
sense, but there is no similar expression in LXX. (4) “Bothros” may be intended as a
place-name which the translator does not further specify, but which was later identified
[e.g. by Symmachus and Jerome] with Cyrene. Contextually, this is the most likely.25

21
Glenny, Meaning : 66-67.
22
Anthony Gelston, “Some Hebrew Misreadings in the Septuagint of Amos,” VT 52 (2002): 495; see
also idem, Biblia Hebraica Quinta 13: The Twelve Minor Prophets (Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft, 2010), 55.
23
The notion of pseudo-variants was first introduced by Emanuel Tov, “On ‘Pseudo-Variants’
Reflected in the Septuagint,” JSS 20 (1975): 165-77.
24
Dines, Amos, 274-75.
25
Dines, Amos, 280-81.
 6

Indeed, in view of the parallelism with the two preceding clauses (“from the land of Egypt”
and “from Caphtor”), one would expect the translator to read a toponym here. Yet βόθρος
itself is unattested as a toponym,26 although later a few Church Fathers tried to localize it. In
addition, it would be far-fetched to think that the translator read a substantive meaning
something like “pit” in Hebrew, then translated it with a Greek word meaning “pit” as a
substantive, and nevertheless tried to use the latter term as a toponym.
Among the remaining interpretations mentioned by Dines, (2) and (3) are contextually
improbable, while the main reason why Dines rules (1) out seems to be the fact that in the
LXX, βόθρος is used as a place where one goes into, not from where one emerges. 27 It is used
to speak of Sheol (e.g. Ezek 26:20), but also of a trap into which one falls (e.g. Ps 56:7) and of
a place of refuge (1 Kgdms 13:6). Except perhaps in the case of Sheol, I fail to see a reason
why a translator could not have thought of the possibility of God bringing back people from
such a place; certainly the fact that this motif is not attested elsewhere does not prevent it
from being used by an author. Probably he was drawn to such an understanding by the
parallelism existing in Hebrew between the three “exodus” of the Israelites, the Philistines,
and the Syrians. A pit is not a toponym, but it is still a place, so it constitutes a parallel to
“Egypt” and “Caphtor;” an imperfect one, admittedly, but still a meaningful one. Perhaps the
translator simply did what he could with a difficult expression – and it is clear from Amos 1:5
that he did not know the toponym ‫קִ יר‬. After all, modern exegetes and epigraphists often face
similar situations when dealing with rare words: when all possible philological efforts have
been made, they often propose an understanding of an expression that is not entirely
satisfactory because the resulting sentence lacks parallels in ancient sources, but that is at least
possible. Often they amend the text, and the outcome is not that different from a pseudo-
variant. Interpreting the choice made by the translator along such lines seems to me a more
sober explanation than ascribing to him polemical intentions – which also entails the risk of
imputing motives.
In short, I find it doubtful that the Greek sentence here bears a depreciative connotation. It
seems to me all the more unlikely because the thrust of the original sentence is clearly
positive with regard to the people which are mentioned: not only Israel, but also the
Philistines and the Syrians have benefited from an “exodus” led by God. Even if the last part

26
There is no corresponding entry in William Smith, ed., A Dictionary of Greek and Roman
Geography (London: Tauris, 2006) and in Mihail Zahariade, Lexicon of the Greek and Roman Cities
and Place Names in Antiquity ca. 1500 B.C.- ca. A.D. 500, fasc. 12 (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 2013).
27
Dines, Amos, 275-77.
 7

of the verse was difficult to understand, the part concerning the Philistines already made clear
what the point was. In this context, a negative remark about the Syrians would be beyond the
point. Therefore, if the translator tried to make the last segment of the sentence a derogatory
assertion about the Syrians, this would not merely entail taking advantage of having to make a
guess at an unknown word to surreptiously introduce a new shade of meaning; it would, on
the contrary, constitute an important distortion of the message of the verse. This does not
square with the translator’s tendency to faithfully render the meaning of the text.
But even if we assume, for the sake of the argument, that the translator wanted to use
depreciative phrasing, it could be due to the fact that the translator felt this negative meaning
was already present in his Hebrew model, since he may have read it (albeit thanks to a slight
manipulation of letters) as meaning “out of a pit.” If so, he was merely trying to convey the
original meaning in Greek, without adding a new connotation. In the end, it seems far from
established that the translator deliberately injected a new, polemical meaning into the text. Or
perhaps he was drawn to his particular choice of pseudo-variant because of his proclivity to
reading criticisms of the Syrians in the Hebrew text? Again, this cannot be altogether ruled
out, but it is impossible to prove; moreover, since the oracle of Amos 1:3-5 is criticizing the
Syrians anyway, such a reading would not necessarily be due to contemporary concerns: the
context provides a more sober explanation.

b. Worsening descriptions of cruel treatment of people by the Syrians?

In two instances, the translator has, according to this theory, worsened the description of cruel
practices of the Syrians. In Amos 1:3, they are criticized because they “threshed Gilead with
threshing sledges of iron” (‫)עַל־ּדּושָ ם ּבַ חֲרֻ צֹות הַ ּבַ ְרזֶל אֶ ת־הַ גִ לְ עָד‬. Here the LXX has a plus: “because
they sawed pregnant women of Gilead with iron saws” (ἀνθ᾽ ὧν ἔπριζον πρίοσι σιδηροῖς τὰς
ἐν γαστρὶ ἐχούσας τῶν ἐν Γαλααδ). Did the translator add this expression in order to paint an
even worse picture of the Syrians? As a matter of fact, this reading was probably already
present in the Hebrew model used by the translator, since the corresponding Hebrew
expression is attested in 5Q1228. As a result, it is not possible here to ascribe to the translator a
desire to modify the text.

28
This is noted by Glenny himself (Meaning, 157). Moreover, this reading is most probably due to
an assimilation to the similar sentence in Amos 1:13, and/or to an influence of 2 Kgdms 8:12, where
Elijah announces that Hazael shall rip up pregnant women: Francis I. Andersen and David N.
 8

In Amos 4:2, the prophet tells upper-class women of Samaria: “the time is surely coming
upon you, when they shall take you away with hooks (‫)ּבְ צִ ּנֹות‬, even the last of you with
fishhooks (‫)ּב ִסירֹות ּדּוגָה‬.”
ְ In the LXX, the threat is different: “they shall take you with
weapons, and fiery pests shall cast those with you into cauldrons heated from underneath”
(καὶ λήμψονται ὑμᾶς ἐν ὅπλοις, καὶ τοὺς μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν εἰς λέβητας ὑποκαιομένους ἐμβαλοῦσιν
ἔμπυροι λοιμοί). Glenny argues that the translator wants, thanks to this free rendering, to
depict a scene of persecution and that he “may have contemporary enemies in mind, like the
Syrians.”29 Indeed, 4 Macc 18:20 narrates the martyrdom of seven Jewish brothers under
Antiochus Epiphanes, which involved (among other things) being “burned from underneath”
(4 Macc 9:19) and being “thrown into a cauldron (λεβης)” (4 Macc 12:1 ; see also 18:20 and
2 Macc 7:3). But the connection between the Seleucids and the torture with heated cauldrons
only rests on legendary narratives, most of which are too late 30 to have influenced the
translator of Amos. It is admittedly possible, but hypothetical, that he would have known of
oral or written traditions connecting Antiochus Epiphanes to torture by heated cauldrons.31
Moreover, the allusion would have been effective only if he could presume that his readers
were themselves aware of such connections. Furthermore, as Glenny himself suggests, several
other passages of earlier biblical books may have influenced him, since they depict Judeans as
meat in cauldrons.32
Actually, free translation is not the only possible explanation for the divergence between the
Hebrew and Greek forms of Amos 4:2. Lexical difficulties explain why the translator thought
of heated cauldrons.33 First, he probably analyzed ‫ ּבְ ִסירֹות‬in light of ‫ ִסיר‬I (“cooking-pot”);
compare the Vulgate in ollis ferventibus. Second, there is little doubt that he experienced
some difficulty with the hapax legomena ‫ צִ ּנָה‬and ‫ּדּוגָה‬. The former was read as the plural of
‫ צִ ּנָה‬II (“shields”), as did the translator of the Peshitta. The latter was probably misread as ‫דור‬,
hence the verb ὑποκαίω (“to burn”); again, compare the Vulgate: in ollis ferventibus. Note in

Freedman, Amos: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible 24A; New
York: Doubleday, 1989), 238-39.
29
Glenny, Meaning, 165.
30
Admittedly, 2 Macc is an abridgement of a work by Jason of Cyrene, dated ca. 160 B.C.E., but a
connection with this work would be very hypothetical and, at any rate, the link with 2 Macc 7:3 is
so limited that it does not hint at a literary dependence.
31
Dines, Amos, 130 notes that “the accounts in 2 and 4 Maccabees are already part of an older
tradition,” but fails to exhibit evidence apart from the very general motif of the “death of famous
men.”
32
Jer 1:13; Ezek 24:5; Mic 3:3; Ezek 11:3,7,11.
33
Gelston, Minor Prophets, 61.
 9

passing that the Latin rendering may indicate that a translator of Amos 4:2 could be led to
think of heated cauldrons without any polemical intention towards the Seleucids, although it
is also possible that Jerome was influenced by the Septuagint. Finally, while at present
ἔμπυροι λοιμοί looks like a deliberate addition, in reality ὑποκαιομένους and ἔμπυροι λοιμοί
constitute a double translation of ‫דור‬. As it happens, the translator did his best to render his
Vorlage, only adding a verb in order to make sense of the sentence because the syntax
demanded it.

LXX TM comments
καὶ λήμψονται ‫וְ נִ שָ א אֶ ְת ֶכם‬ correct translation
ὑμᾶς
ἐν ὅπλοις ‫ְּבצִ ּנֹות‬ read as the plural of ‫ צִ ּנָה‬II (“shields”) (the same in
the Peshitta)
καὶ τοὺς μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν ‫יתכֶן‬
ְ ‫וְ אַ ח ֲִר‬ read as two words?
εἰς λέβητας ‫ְּב ִסירֹות‬ read as the plural of ‫ ִסיר‬I (“cooking-pot”) (the same
in the Vulgate)
ὑποκαιομένους ‫ּדּוגָה‬ misread as ‫“( דור‬to burn”) (similar interpretation in
the Vulgate and the Peshitta)
ἐμβαλοῦσιν - addition made in order to make sense of the
sentence
ἔμπυροι λοιμοί [‫]ּדּוגָה‬ double translation

c. Critique of the Seleucids and their allies?

In several instances, so the theory goes, the translator has been influenced by his hostility
towards the Seleucids or some of their political allies. In Amos 6:1 the prophet criticizes
“those who are at ease (‫ )הַ שַ ֲאנַּנִ ים‬in Zion, and those who feel secure in Mount Samaria.” But in
Greek the first group of people is different: “those who are despising (τοῖς ἐξουθενοῦσι)
Zion.” The description goes on by asserting that “they have plucked the heads of the nations,”
which again differs from the MT. According to Glenny, “it is likely that those trusting in
Samaria, who harvested the heads of the nations, would bring to mind Seleucid leaders, who
had defeated some of the surrounding nations.”34 So the translator, who perhaps did not know

34
Glenny, Meaning, 167-71.
 10

the verb ‫שאנן‬, may have been led to his lexical choice by the quite natural connection between
the Seleucids and people in Samaria “despising” Zion.
However, such a conclusion is reached only by excluding simpler explanations: (i) a
misreading of ‫ השאננים‬as ‫ השאטים‬if the two successive nuns were confused with a teth;35 (ii) a
confusion or a pseudo-variant with ‫;השנאים‬36 (iii) an inner-Greek corruption of εὐθηνοῦσιν
into ἐξουθενοῦσιν, in view of the fact that the former word corresponds to ‫ הַ שַ ֲאנַּנִ ים‬in Ps
122:4;37 there may also have been an influence from the latter passage since it mentions,
immediately after, the “contempt” of arrogant people.38 As Dines has noted,39 the difficulty of
(i) and (ii) is the lack of attestation for the equivalences of ‫ שאט‬and ‫ שנא‬with ἐξουθενέω, while
with (iii), it is difficult to account for the prefix ἐξ-. These are perhaps not incontrovertible
objections, though, since unique equivalences do happen, and the same for the addition of a
prefix in the course of the transmission of a Greek verb.
At any rate, Dines judiciously demonstrates that there is “considerable flexibility in LXX’s
handling” of ‫שאנן‬, so much so that ἐξουθενέω “is not so unlikely a rendering.”40 In particular,
she notes that the Hebrew verb is sometimes used in a condemnatory sense, and that the
presence, in the parallel clause in Amos 6:1, of ‫בטח‬, itself sometimes used for the attitude of
arrogant people, may have colored in this manner the interpretation of ‫ שאנן‬by the translator.
As a result, while Dines afterwards contemplates the possibility that the translator interpreted
the people criticized in Amos 6:1 as contemporary groups (e.g. Samaritans or Hellenizers),
there is no reason to think that this is what inspired his translation: rather, Dines has in effect
provided enough evidence for a more sober, purely philological explanation. To her
arguments one might add another: the fact that Jerusalem is criticized at the beginning of this
oracle, and in parallel to Samaria, has surprised many modern commentators and prompted
some of them to emend the word “Zion.”41 Perhaps this difficulty favored the choice of a verb
that makes clear that ‫ הַ שַ ֲאנַּנִ ים ְּבצִ ּיֹון‬are not Jerusalemites.

35
Gelston, Minor Prophets, 84.
36
See Dines, Amos, 177.
37
An hypothesis formulated by P. E. Satterthwaite in an unpublished paper mentioned by Glenny,
Meaning, 168.
38
Satterthwaite, mentioned by Glenny, Meaning, 168-169.
39
Dines, Amos, 177-78.
40
Dines, Amos, 178.
41
See Shalom M. Paul, Amos (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 199 fn. 2.
 11

A few verses further, the translator “understood [Amos 6:7] to refer to the removal of the
Syrian armies from Ephraim.”42 This transpired in a plus at the end of the verse: “the neighing
of horses (ἵππων) will be removed from Ephraim (ἐξ Εφραιμ).” This addition may have been
influenced by Zech 9:10 LXX: “He will destroy the chariots from Ephraim (ἐξ Εφραιμ) and
the horse (ἵππον) out of Jerusalem,” a verse which, in turn, was read as an allusion to a
Maccabean leader whose fight would have led the Seleucid armies to leave Jerusalem. It is
indeed plausible that the Greek text in Amos 6:7 results from an assimilation to Zech 9:10,
and perhaps the mention of Joseph in v. 6 influenced the introduction of Ephraim here. But it
is far from clear that (a) the translator read the latter verse in light of the Maccabean victories
(see below) and (b) the motive behind the assimilation is related to this interpretation.
Assimilations often occur without any underlying ideological interpretation: most of the time,
they are simply prompted by the similarity between sentences. In the present case, the
translator may have felt the need to complete the sentence because it would have been odd if
the verse did not specify the place from which the horses would be removed; he found the
answer in Zech 9:10. According to the principle of Occam’s razor, this analysis seems the
most probable.
In Amos 1:15, we read a judgment against the Ammonites: “their king (‫ )מַ לְ ּכם‬shall go into
exile, he and his princes (‫ )הּוא וְ שָ ָריו‬together.” The Greek version is different: “its kings (οἱ
βασιλεῖς αὐτῆς) shall go into exile, their priests and their rulers (οἱ ἱερεῖς αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ
ἄρχοντες αὐτῶν) together.” There are two differences: (i) the plural “kings” and its suffix, (ii)
the expression “their priests” instead of “he.” Dines, followed by Glenny, makes the
historically fascinating suggestion that the Ammonite rulers of the Greek text might be “the
Tobiad supporters of Antiochus Epiphanes and allies among the Jerusalem priesthood.”43
However, it must be admitted that the reference would be very allusive and I am not sure that
it would have been perceived by a reader. Moreover, the variants may receive simpler
explanations: (i) can be explained by an assimilation to the context, since the second part of
the verse mentions “their rulers,”44 while (ii) may result from an assimilation to the very
similar sentence in Jer 30:19, as Glenny himself notes.45 These changes may have already
been present in the Vorlage.

42
Glenny, Meaning, 171-73.

43
Dines, Amos, 81; Glenny, Meaning, 160.
44
Gelston, Minor Prophets, 39, 79.
45
Glenny, Meaning, 158.
 12

d. Adding mentions of Damascus in negative contexts?

In two passages, the Septuagint contains a reference to “Damascus” which is absent in the
MT,46 and in a negative context. Amos 3:12 LXX contains a threat against “those who live in
Samaria before a tribe and in Damascus as priests.” In Zeph 2:9 LXX, it is written that
“Damascus shall be abandoned like a mound of salt.” But the mention of Damascus in these
verses is due to the fact that the translator confused ‫ ּדַ מֶ שֶ ק‬I and ‫ ּדַ מֶ שֶ ק‬II (“silk”) in the former
case (an assimilation to the usual word),47 and read ‫ ּדַ מֶ שֶ ק‬instead of the hapax ‫ ִמ ְמשָ ק‬in the
latter.48 So in both cases the divergence is due to a confusion made by the translator. Most
importantly, it seems difficult to claim that it was his inclination to criticize Damascus, or to
read criticisms of Damascus in the text, that led him to these misinterpretations, since a much
simpler explanation is available: having to cope with a rare homograph on the one hand, a
hapax on the other, he read a well-known toponym. Perhaps Jerome did the same in Amos
3:12 (et in Damasco grabatti), unless he was influenced by the Septuagint.49

2. Pro-Hasmonean sympathies in the Greek version of Zechariah?

In recent years several scholars have proposed that the translation of the Minor Prophets
betrays a pro-Maccabean bias, especially in the book of Zechariah.

46
Dines, “The Minor Prophets,” 447.
47
Glenny, Meaning, 75; Gelston, Minor Prophets, 43.
48
Marguerite Harl et al., Les Douze Prophètes. Joël, Abdiou, Jonas, Naoum, Ambakoum, Sophonie (La
Bible d’Alexandrie 23.4-9; Paris: Cerf, 1999), 353; Gelston, Minor Prophets, 128.
49
In the course of his discussion of Amos, Glenny, Meaning, 160 also mentions Hab 1:7 in passing.
The Chaldean people are called “frightening” (‫)נֹורא‬ ָ in the MT, but
“remarkable/notable/distinguished” (ἐπιφανής) in the LXX. Glenny suggests that this rendering
may be due to the fact that the translator had Antiochus Epiphanes in mind.49 Perhaps we should
imagine that this adjective became so closely connected to a persecutor that it was chosen to
characterize the terrifying Babylonians, though this seems a bit of a stretch to me. In reality, the
use of this adjective to render ‫נֹורא‬
ָ is regular and unremarkable in the Greek version of the Twelve:
Edwin Hatch and Henry A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions
to the Old Testament, vol. 1. (Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsansalt, 1975), 538. See notably,
in the Twelve, Joel 2:11; Zeph 3:1, and the discussion in C. Dogniez, "Fautes de traduction ou bonnes
traductions ? Quelques exemples pris dans la LXX des Douze Prophètes," in X Congress of the
International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (IOSCS), Oslo 1998 (ed. B. A. Taylor;
Septuagint and Cognate Studies 51; Atlanta: SBL, 2001), 241-61; esp. 248-51; Harl et al., Les Douze
Prophètes 4-9, 263-64.
 13

a. The royal figure of Zech 9:9-10

In Zech 9:9-10 LXX an oracle announces the coming of a “king” who will save Judah and
destroy the army of the enemies (“chariots” and “cavalry”), expelling them “from Jerusalem”.
According to van der Kooij, this description “fits the picture of Maccabean leaders as
presented in 1 Maccabees”. This would be true in particular of Simon because, according to
1 Macc 13-14, he saved Judah from its enemies and evicted the latter from the land and
notably from the City of David (see esp. 1 Macc 14:36).50 Van der Kooij further points out
several textual agreements between a passage concerning Simon (1 Maccabees 14:4-15) and
two verses of the Greek Minor Prophets (compare 1 Macc 14:9 and Zech 8:4; 1 Macc 14:12
and Mic 4:4). He concludes that “the passage in Zech 9 was understood by the translator, and
his milieu, as a prediction of Simon”.51
However, van der Kooij does not specify the relationship between the texts or the underlying
traditions. Since 1 Maccabees was probably written after the translation of the Twelve, it is
unlikely that the translator would have been influenced by this book. And an influence the
other way around would obviously not support van der Kooij’s hypothesis. So are we to
understand that both the author of 1 Maccabees and the translator of the Twelve had recourse
to similar language to refer, explicitly or implicitly, to the role of Simon? Maybe this could be
telling if it concerned formulae or patterns specifically related to this leader and his work. But
a look at the verses involved immediately shows that this is far from being the case; on the
contrary, they only contain commonplace images:
“old men and old women shall again sit in the streets of Jerusalem” (Zech 8:4); “old
men sat in the street” (1 Macc 14:9);
“each one shall rest under his vine, and each under his fig tree” (Mic 4:4); “each man
sat under his vine and his fig tree” (1 Macc 14:12).
Beyond these inconclusive parallels, the main argument in favor of the notion that the
translator read Zech 9:9-10 as a prediction of Simon is the fact that the latter managed to
expel Judah’s enemies from the land. Yet this corresponds to a very common hope for an
occupied country, and the translator hardly needed to interpret Zech 9:9-10 in light of recent

50
Arie van der Kooij, “The Septuagint of Zechariah as Witness to an Early Interpretation of the
Book,” in The Book of Zechariah and its Influence (ed. Christopher Tuckett; Burlington: Ashgate,
2003), 53-64.
51
Van der Kooij, “The Septuagint of Zechariah,” 63.
 14

events in order to translate it as he did. Perhaps he did make the connection in his mind, but
the point is that we will never know because his translation would not have been different
anyway. Admittedly, some scholars have noted that the king is called “salvific (σῴζων)” in
the LXX (v. 9), whereas he is “saved (‫ ”)נֹושָ ע‬in the MT; this would show that the translator
was keen to read this verse as a prediction of a saving king, perhaps because he has in mind
the victories of the Maccabees.52 The latter connection seems a bit of a stretch to me: there is
no need to think of the Maccabees in order to read this passage as a reference to a liberator
(see v. 10). At any rate, the lexical choice of the translator may be regarded as “dynamic
equivalence”: as Dogniez has noted, “la divergence entre le grec et l’hébreu pourrait se
comprendre comme un souci d’expliciter l’hébreu: le roi qui a été ‘sauvé’ par YHWH…

devient à son tour ‘sauveur’”.53 Interestingly, the translators made the same choice in the
Vulgate and the Peshitta,54 and yet, nothing suggests they had Simon in mind.55 Similarly,
some modern versions, such as the NRSV in English or the TOB in French, bear “victorious”.
Another possible explanation would be that δίκαιος καὶ σῴζων in Zech 9:9 results from an
assimilation to Isa 45:21, where one reads ‫ּומֹושי ַע‬
ִ ‫ צַ ִּדיק‬.56

b. “Judah” in Zech 14:14

More recently, Pola57 has drawn attention to a neglected variant in Greek manuscripts of Zech
14:14: καὶ (ὁ) Ιουδας παρατάξεται ἐν Ιερουσαλημ . The definite article before Ιουδας is
present in LXXA but absent from most the other manuscripts. It was adopted by Rahlfs but
regarded as secondary by Ziegler.58 Clearly the presence of the article implies that an

52
Thomas Pola, “The Greek Text of Zechariah: A Document from Maccabean Jerusalem?,” in
Tradition in Transition: Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 in the Trajectory of Hebrew Theology (ed. Mark J.
Boda and Michael H. Floyd; LHBOTS 475; New York: Clark, 2008), 299; see also Eidsvåg, Old Greek,
166.
53
Cécile Dogniez, “L’arrivée du roi,” 223. See also Marguerite Harl et al., Les Douze Prophètes. Aggée,
Zacharie (La Bible d’Alexandrie 23.10-11; Paris: Cerf, 2007), 302.
54
In the Targum some manuscripts bear an active participle and others a passive participle.
55
Eidsvåg, Old Greek, 184 also thinks that πραῢς (“meek”) in Zech 9: 9 has messianic connotations,
but this would not necessitate a connection with the Maccabees; a text like this lends itself easily
to messianic interpretation.
56
Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Zechariah 9-14: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary (AB 25C; New York: Doubleday, 1993), 126.
57
Pola, “The Greek Text of Zechariah,” 298-99; see also Eidsvåg, Old Greek, 169.
58
Joseph Ziegler, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graece, vol. 13: Duodecim Prophetae (Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 326.
 15

individual is in mind, in which case the presumption that it is Judah Maccabees seems quite
strong.
Two arguments might support the view that the article was present in the Old Greek. First,
according to Pola the mention of the Sukkoth Feast in the immediate context (v. 16, 18-19)
mirrored, in the eyes of the translator, the same feast after the rededication of the Temple
(2 Macc 10:6). This would support the notion that this translator interpreted the passage in
light of recent events. Eidsvåg has recently substantiated this view59 by showing that the
translator deviated from the Hebrew in v. 17-18 in a way that betrayed his concern that
everybody must participate in the Sukkoth Feast, a concern shared with the Hasmoneans
(2 Macc 1:1-9; 2:18; 10:8):60
In Zech 14:17, the text contains a threat to those who will not come up to Jerusalem to
celebrate the feast. The MT reads “on them there will be no rain” (MT), but the LXX
reads “even these shall be added to the others” (καὶ οὗτοι ἐκείνοις προστεθήσονται).
This is probably a way of saying that these people will die, as in the expression “he
was added to his people” (προσετέθη πρὸς τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ; Gen 25:8; 49:33; etc.) The
meaning here seems to be that “these” (the people who do not come up to the feast)
will be added to “the others” (those who will be subjected to a calamity by the Lord
according to v. 12 and 18). It is an interpretation of the MT, since the absence of rain
ultimately leads to death.61 So while it is true that the Greek phrasing makes the threat
more explicit, it is just an explanation of the Hebrew, which already, albeit indirectly
and subtly, announces the death of the people who will not attend the feast. This may
be regarded as an instance of “dynamic equivalence.” It may be due to the translator’s
concern that readers clearly understand the gravity of the threat because Sukkhot was
important in his time, but it may also simply betray the translator’s desire that the text
be understandable. It is difficult to discriminate between these two possible motives.
V. 18 contains a similar threat, except that the consonantal text of the MT oddly states
that “if the family of Egypt do not go up and present themselves, then upon them shall
not come the plague (‫ )וְ ל ֹא ֲעלֵיהֶ ם ִ ִּֽתהְ יֶה הַ מַ ֵגפָה‬with which the Lord afflicts the nations
that do not go up to keep the Feast of Booths”. Eidsvåg thinks that the translator

59
Eidsvåg, Old Greek, 185-204.
60
In addition, Eidsvåg, Old Greek, 191-97 thinks that the translator of Zech 14 has elaborated the
eschatological and military overtones of the chapter. This is quite possible but does not necessarily
point to a connection with the Maccabees since Zech 14 lends itself to an eschatological and
military interpretation anyway.
61
Harl et al., Aggée, Zacharie, 363.
 16

dropped the negation and that this betrays his concern that everybody come to the
feast. But this is doubtful: it could be a case of converse translation, or simply a way
of making sense of a seemingly corrupt text; after all, modern translators do the same
(e.g. the NRSV).
In sum, the arguments drawn from the treatment of the context of Zech 14:14 by the translator
do not seem to me convincing.
Nevertheless, there is a second argument: it could be argued that a copyist may have felt
under pressure to suppress the article, or may have done it inadvertently, since the name Judah
is usually translated without the article, even when it refers to an individual (see e.g. Gen 38;
43; 44). That said, the fact remains that this reading is poorly attested in the textual witnesses.
One cannot exclude that an isolated copyist introduced the article because he made a
connection with Judah Maccabees, whose fame endured. Therefore, as tempting as it is to
discern here a historical allusion, it cannot be regarded as established beyond doubt.

c. Hiding the names of rivals of the Hasmoneans (Zech 6:10, 14)

Lately, Eidsvåg62 has put forward further evidence in his thorough and fascinating study of
Greek Zechariah.
MT ‫ֹאש ָּיה בֶ ן־צְ פַנְ יָה אֲשֶ ר־‬
ִ ‫לָקֹוחַ מֵ אֵ ת הַ גֹולָה מֵ חֶ לְ ּדַ י ּומֵ אֵ ת טֹובִ ּיָה ּומֵ אֵ ת יְ דַ עְ יָה ּובָ אתָ אַ תָ ה ּבַ ּיֹום הַ הּוא ּובָ אתָ ּבֵ ית י‬
‫ּבָ אּו ִמּבָ בֶ ל‬
)…(
‫וְ הָ עֲטָ רֹ ת ִתהְ יֶה לְ חֵ לֶם ּולְ טֹובִ ּיָה וְ לִ ידַ עְ יָה ּולְ חֵ ן ּבֶ ן־צְ פַנְ יָה לְ ִזּכָרֹון ּבְ הֵ יכַל יְ הוָה‬
Take of them of the captivity, of Heldai, of Tobijah, and of Jedaiah, who have come
from Babylon, and come the same day, and go into the house of Josiah the son of
Zephaniah. (v. 10) (…)
And the crowns shall be to Helem, and to Tobia, and to Jedaiah, and to Hen the son of
Zephanial, as a memorial in the temple of Yhwh (v. 14)
LXX λαβὲ τὰ ἐκ τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας παρὰ τῶν ἀρχόντων καὶ παρὰ τῶν χρησίμων αὐτῆς καὶ
παρὰ τῶν ἐπεγνωκότων αὐτὴν καὶ εἰσελεύσῃ σὺ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ εἰς τὸν οἶκον
Ιωσιου τοῦ Σοφονιου τοῦ ἥκοντος ἐκ Βαβυλῶνος (…)
ὁ δὲ στέφανος ἔσται τοῖς ὑπομένουσι καὶ τοῖς χρησίμοις αὐτῆς καὶ τοῖς ἐπεγνωκόσιν
αὐτὴν καὶ εἰς χάριτα υἱοῦ Σοφονιου καὶ εἰς ψαλμὸν ἐν οἴκῳ κυρίου

62
Eidsvåg, Old Greek, 205-13.
 17

Take the things of the captivity from the chief men, and from its useful men, and from
the men who have come to know it. And you shall enter in that day into the house of
Josiah the son of Sophoniah who came out of Babylon. (v. 10) (…)
And the crown shall be to them that wait patiently, and to its useful men, and to the
men who have come to know it, and to the favor of the son of Sophoniah, and for a
psalm in the house of the Lord. (v. 14)63

In Zech 6, the MT mentions twice a series of three men: Heldai/Helem, Tobijah and Jedaiah.
In the LXX these names are not transcribed but translated (see the table above). According to
Eidsvåg, the translator avoided rendering these names as personal names in order to support
the Hasmoneans. Indeed, the latter “traced their genealogy back to Joiarib (1 Macc 2:1) and
thus could claim to be legitimate heirs to the office of high priest,”64 while the Oniads, the
leading high-priest family who was their rival, descended from Jedaiah (cf. Ezr 2:36-39). The
presence of Jedaiah’s name as a witness to the coronation of the high priest Joshua (Zech 6:9-
14) might have been embarrassing for the Hasmoneans, hence his elimination from the LXX.
The translator did the same with “Tobiah” because it was the name of a powerful family rival
of the Hasmoneans.
While this scenario is certainly possible (and exciting for an historian), it is, by nature,
difficult to decide whether a translator did not transcribe a name because he wanted to avoid
mentioning it or simply because he genuinely did not read it as a name. Granted, Tobijah and
Jedaiah were probably relatively easy to spot as personal names. But they belong to the last
two expressions in a series of four having the form X + ‫מֵ אֵ ת‬. The first such expression
encountered by the translator is ‫מֵ אֵ ת הַ גֹולָה‬, and this probably predisposed him to expect the
next words in a similar position to designate groups of people; indeed this is how he renders
them (τῶν ἀρχόντων, τῶν χρησίμων αὐτῆς, τῶν ἐπεγνωκότων αὐτήν). In addition, the second
expression contains the name Heldai, which is not frequent; the (probable) scribal error65
Helem in v. 14 may be a testimony to the difficulty this rarity caused. It would be small
wonder if the translator thought that ‫ חלדי‬was a substantive, in which case this would have
reinforced his predisposition to reading substantives in the last two identical constructions.
The absence of patronyms, of course, did not facilitate his task; note that when there is one,

63
It is Eidsvåg’s translation of these verses: Old Greek, 206.
64
Eidsvåg, Old Greek, 211.
65
Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8: A New Translation with Introduction
and Commentary (AB 25B; New York: Doubleday, 1987), 340.
 18

the name is transcribed (“Josiah the son of Sophoniah” in v. 10); this may be the exception
that proves the rule. In addition, the syntax of the beginning of the verse is notoriously
difficult.
Finally, one may ask whether the motive for translating the names instead of transcribing
them is really credible. After all, the mention of Jedaiah does not invalidate the claim of the
Hasmoneans to the legitimacy to the office of high priest; they could still invoke their
ascendency to Joiarib. We do not know if the Hasmoneans really minded the presence of the
names Jedaiah and Tobiah in a text referring to realities several centuries old. And if politics
was the motive for avoiding these names, why doing the same with the inoffensive “Heldai”?
All in all, the hypothesis that the translator mistook the names as substantives seems to me at
least as plausible as the notion that he deliberately translated them.

3. By way of conclusion: methodological remarks

The set of case studies reviewed above is not exhaustive: it is limited to instances where the
Greek version of Amos and Zechariah might have been influenced by the translator’s political
biases. It is perfectly possible that the results would be different in other parts of the Twelve
Prophets, though only a few possible cases have been pointed out.66 Even so, the outcome
seems significant. In each case, it turns out that an alternative explanation exists, and in the
vast majority of cases this explanation seems more likely. Only in a couple of cases is it
difficult to decide. I am not denying that a larger part of the evidence can be construed as
hinting to ideological biases, as has been capably done by Dines, Glenny and Eidsvåg. We are
indebted to them for exploring fascinating possibilities and discussing in much detail difficult
passages that can be interpreted in several ways. What I conclude is rather that there is no
clinching evidence in favour of this thesis, at least in the cases examined in this paper. The
thesis seems possible in some cases, but not proved; moreover, in my judgment, it does not
generally constitute the likeliest conclusion. It is also significant that this thesis often
supposes a willingness to alter the meaning of the text, which does not square with the general
faithfulness of the translator towards his Hebrew model, noted in many other contexts.

66
In the volumes of the series La Bible d’Alexandrie on Hosea (Bons, Joosten, and Kessler, Osée),
Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah (Harl et al., Joël), Haggai and Zechariah
(Harl et al., Aggée, Zacharie), and Malachi (Laurence Vianès, Les Douze Prophètes. Malachie [La
Bible d’Alexandrie 23.12; Paris: Cerf, 2011]), the introductions report only a very few possible cases.
In the list of possible instances provided by Dines, “The Minor Prophets,” 446-47, there does not
seem any assured case.
 19

In addition, beside this negative result, the discussions have brought to light several
methodological difficulties.

a. Occam’s razor

First, in many cases, the principle of Occam’s razor favours a much simpler explanation,
whether a misreading, a different vocalization or a lexical confusion. In other cases, the
hypothesis of an ideological bias rests on a reading that may be secondary. Sometimes, the
difference compared to the MT was already present in the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX, as the
Dead Sea scrolls have shown.
It could be countered that in the case of misreading, different vocalization or lexical
confusion, the translator, facing several equal options, made a choice that betrays his own
inclinations. This is a possibility that should, in my view, be taken seriously, although it is
difficult in practice. Let me illustrate this point by an example taken in Mal 3: the prophet
criticizes (in v. 15) and threatens (in v. 19) the “arrogant ones” (‫ )ז ִֵדים‬in the MT, but the
“foreigners” (ἀλλοτρίους; οἱ ἀλλογενεῖς) in the LXX. Everybody admits that the translator
read ‫ ז ִָרים‬instead of ‫ז ִֵדים‬, but some scholars think that this choice was due to the translator’s
negative stance towards foreigners.67 As is well known, daleth and resh were virtually
indistinguishable in the Hebrew script at the time of the translator, and this caused many
misreadings. But precisely, the choice he made between two equal possibilities could reveal
his own tendencies. However, this reasoning would be more convincing if both Hebrew words
had the same degree of frequency in the text. As it happens, ‫ זֵד‬appears in no more than five
other passages than Mal 3, and nowhere else in the Twelve, whereas ‫ זָר‬is far more frequent; it
is well attested, and rendered by ἀλλότριος or ἀλλογενής, in the Twelve.68 Under these
circumstances, what would really have been remarkable is if the translator chose to read ‫ז ִֵדים‬.
Therefore, the simplest explanation is that the translator read the word he knew well and
probably had already met several times beforehand in the Book of the Twelve. In sum, the
choice made by the translator of an option A among a set of options A, B, C… does not
necessarily point to a Tendenz. In order to make such a conclusion, more information is
needed, notably on the level of lexical equivalences (and I am certainly not denying that this
kind of information sometimes allow us to discover the orientations of a translator).

67
Vianès, Malachie, 58; Dines, “The Minor Prophets,” 447.
68
Hos 5:7; 7:9; 8:7, 12; Jonas 4:17; Obad 11.
 20

b. Equivocal evidence

Second, it is important to distinguish between the following possibilities:

(a) the translator deliberately modified the meaning of an expression in order
to convey an idea that was not, in his own interpretation, present in the
Vorlage;
(b) the translator read his Hebrew model as containing an allusion to a person
(or a nation, an event, etc.), for instance a prediction or a veiled critique, and
he made sure that the Greek text also conveyed it, even if it meant making a
“dynamic equivalence”;
(c) the translator unconsciously projected into the text his own perspective,
although he was trying to faithfully render the meaning of his Vorlage.
It is often difficult, if not impossible, to decide between these analyses, and yet my impression
is (a) has often been favoured in recent discussions, although (b) or (c) is just as likely, or
even more so. The trouble, of course, is that we have no access to the translator’s mind. For
example, he may well have genuinely believed that Zech 14:14 was a prophetic prediction of
Judas Maccabees. If so, the rendering of Judah by ὁ Ιουδας did not constitute a deliberate
bending of the text; the translator tried to faithfully render the meaning of his Hebrew model.
Similarly, perhaps the possible addition of “from Ephraim” in Amos 6:7 and the rendering
“even these shall be added to the others” in Zech 14:17 come under the category of dynamic
equivalence, if the translator only tried to make explicit what was implicit in his Vorlage.
These situations are different from the case of Zech 6:10, 14, where, according to Eidsvåg, the
translator deliberately translated the names as though, or rather because he knew very well
they were personal names. This would be a situation of type (a), where the translator betrayed
a bias against a contemporary leading family (the Tobiads), although it does not seems to be
certain to me.

c. Identifying the “target”

Third, even if we founded convincing cases where the translator bended the meaning in order
to criticize a nation (or a person), it would still be difficult, if not impossible, to decide
whether the “target” of the translator was the nation to which the text originally referred to
(e.g. the Syrians of the 8th century B.C.E.), or a nation of his own time (e.g. the Seleucids). It is
theoretically conceivable that “Syria” served as a cypher for “Seleucids,” but precisely
 21

because the translator kept using the former word, which was regularly used to refer to the
“old” people, we cannot prove it: it is, so to speak, undetectable unless more evidence
corroborates this hypothesis. Admittedly, a redactor of the Damascus Document was inspired
by Amos 5:27 when he used “Damascus” as an oblique reference to another place (perhaps
Babylon or the Qumran site), but nothing allows us to generalize this use and presuppose that
the translator of the Twelve did the same. This remark also applies to the mentions of Canaan
or Canaanites in several passages of the Greek Minor Prophets:69 it is very difficult to claim
that there are veiled references to contemporary non-Israelites. Similarly, the existence of
anti-Samaritan polemics in Greek Amos rests on the assumption that the Northern kingdom
serves as a cypher for them: this seems theoretically possible, but very difficult to establish.
In addition, it is conceivable that a scribe or a translator worsened the picture of a “bad”
character although the latter was not used as a cypher for a contemporary person, and
therefore without any political implication. Conversely, a translator may well have tried to
make clearer the royal or messianic overtones of a passage if he read it as containing such
overtones, whether or not he believed that the prediction was already fulfilled. Thus even if
one was sure that the rendering ‫ > נֹושָ ע‬σῴζων in Zech 9:9 was a deliberate bending of the
meaning (rather than a dynamic equivalence or a misinterpretation), such a slight intervention
could have been made even if the translator only had in mind a future leader. Textual criticism
offers examples where a copyist accentuated features of a “good” character even if he did not
serve as a cypher for a contemporary person. Thus, in 1 Kgdms 4:20-5:6 MT, the description
of Solomon’s kingdom has been embellished compared to the more sober description in the
LXX, notably by the addition of several sentences (4:20-5:1; 5:5).70 In sum, characters could
attract the hostility or the sympathy of copyists even though they did not have any directly
contemporary relevance, so I would not be surprised if the same happened with translators.

69
Hos 4: 18; 12: 7; Zeph 1: 11; Zech 14: 21 (see Dines, “The Minor Prophets,” 447).
70
See Matthieu Richelle, “The Relevance of the Septuagint for the Reconstruction of the History of
Ancient Israel,” in Die Septuaginta: Geschichte: Wirkung – Relevanz. 6. Internationale Fachtagung
Wuppertal, 21.-24. Juli 2016 (ed. M. Meiser et al.; WUNT; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, forthcoming).