Ven ‘Testamentum Verus Tessamentumn 57 (2007) 524-547 ‘swebrlaive Hebrew Misreadings or Free Translation in the Septuagint of Amos? W. Edward Glenay ‘Se. Paul, MN, USA Abstract “The purpose of chis study is to test and respond to the theory of A. Gelston presented in his aide, "Some Hebrew Mistesdings in the Septuagine of Amos,” VT" (2002), pp. 493-500. Gelston gives ewenty-three examples of ditferences between the MT and LXX of Amos that he argues should be explained by indistince writing or damage to the Hebrew Vorlage. Ic is more probable that most of the twenty-three examples of differences between the MT and LXX of ‘Amos thar Gelston surveys are the result of the translators ateempt to make sense of words ot phrases in the Verlage that he did noc understand. In many of che examples cited by Gelscon rare ‘ordiffcule words in the context in the Vorlage offer a ready explanation of the difference. Some ‘ofthe differences are probably the result of double translations, adequace but imprecise ransla- tions, or theologically motivated trandlations Keywords Septuagint, Amos, trnclation, erinslation technique, misreading “The purpose of this study is to test and respond to the theory of A. Gelston presented in his article, “Some Hebrew Misreadings in the Sepcuagint of Amos,” VT (2002), pp. 493-500. In this article, based on observations made during preparation of the apparatus for Amos in the new edition of Biblia Hebraica (Fditio Quinta), Gelston points out twenty-three examples of what he calls “misteadings’ of the Hebrew in LXX-Amos. The “unusual concentra- tion” of such “misteadings’ that Gelston sees in the “fairly short text” of LXX- ‘Amos suggests to him that the translator experienced unusual difficulty in © ‘This paper was presented co the JOSCS section of SBL ac the 2005 annual meeting in Phila delphia, PA. The author would like to chank M.D. Carrell, Ry J. M. Dines, M.A. Grsant, B.M. Levirson, JK. Palmer, PH, Selew, and M. O. Wise fr inp at various stages of tis paper (© Konillpe Bl NV, Leldes, 2007 DOK: 10.1163/156853207x204619WE, Genny Veius Testamentuom 57 (2007) 524-547 525 deciphering his Vorlage> He writes, “The present study is concerned with one particular kind of discrepancy between the MT and the LXX of Amos. Itarises at the first stage of the process of translation, the deciphering of the Hebrew Vorlage by the translator”? Working with the MT and Ziegler’s text of the LXX, he argues that in the twenty-three examples he addresses in the article the translator was “impaired by obscurity in the Vorlage.” caused by indistinct handwriting in the inscription of the Vorlage or subsequent damage to the manuscript.“ Although Gelston occasionally allows for other factors that might have influenced the differences he addresses between the MT and the LXX, he repeatedly stresses his thesis that indistinct handwriting in the Vorlage ot damage to the manuscript was the initial or major cause of the differences he addresses between the MT and LXX.> In summary, although Gelston acknowledges other factors that might be involved in the differences he cites between the MT and LXX-Amos, the fre- quent confusion between individual letters, specially daleth and resh, suggests to him that the main difficulty the translator faced was in reading the text of the Vorlage: however, in four instances where the misreading extends to two adjacent lewers (ii 11; iif 15; vi 15 vii 1), they “might be explained beer by damage to the Vorlage, e.g. a smudge, blot, or even a small rear." 2. A, Gelston, “Some Hebrew Misreadings in the Septuagint of Amos.” VI'52 (2002), pp. 494, 499, Gelston is aware that ancient translators encountered other kinds of difficulties also; see A. Geliton, “Some Difficulties Encountered by Ancient Teandator,” in Y. A. B Goldman etal (eds), Séjer Mahi: Esays m Honor of Adrian Schenter Offered by Editors cf Biblia Hebraica Quinta (Leiden, 2006), pp. 47-58, where he discusses the difficulties translators had with hemonyrs, differences of vocalization, and contusion of roats in MP. 9 Gelaton, "Hebrew Misteadings.” p. 493. © Gelscon, “Hebrew Misteadings,” pp. 493, 500. 9 One example of the influence of another factor is iv 5: he writes, “the translator evidendly failed to understand the dlavse (iv. 5.1-3) as 1 whole, and made che best sense that he could of the individual words” (p. 494). However, in saying this he is not acknowledging thatthe lack of uundersanding led to the “misteading® in iv 5, and if he were, auch an admission would argue _againsthis thesis. In four instances he suggests minuses of certain eters in the reading followed hy the trandlaror, whether from defective spelling (iv 13: viii 4) or otherwise (ii 1; vi 7). He allows chat the translator read or supplied addicional letters in vi 3 and 7. And he sees the pos- sibility that metathess was a ficror in the translation of ii 7 and 9. These kinds of influences complicate his theory. He abo acknowledges chat semantic factors might have ad an influence in some passages: he allows that the transator may not have known the Hebrew word in his ccxample from vi 3. Finally in three examples, which receive fuller discussion (ii 95 vi 1; and ix 12) heallows that the misceading ofthe text may have been connected to difficulies with the Hebrew, but dhe inital or main factor was indistinct writing. See pp. 495-496. © Galston, "Hebrew Misteadings.” p. 499.526 WE. Glenny Vetus Tetamenrum 57 (2007) 524-547 In the introduction to his article Gelston summarizes three main possible causes of discrepancy berween the MT’ and LXX: ‘The Hebrew Vorlage might have differed from the MT; the translator may have changed the sense; or the translation may have been changed in the process of its transmission. He focuses on the second main cause, changes made by the translator. However, he concentrates on one reason for changes made by the translator, indistinct or damaged Vorlage. And there were other factors that also could have influenced the translators 10 change the sense of their Vorlage. E. Tow submits, “the translators sometimes knowingly manipulated the Hebrew con- sonants in order to create words which would fit the context better than the words of their Vorlage, either because the Vorlage was not understandable to them or because the translator made certain adaptations in the wake of other changes ot mistranslations.”’ In his essay on “Hebrew Hapax Legomena and Septuagint Lexicography”* I; Muraoka concludes, among other things, that in most cases the translator's Vorlage was virtually identical with the MT and occasionally the cranslator “appears to be manipulating che Hebrew text in order co overcome what he perceived to be a difficult text” Since Gelston made his observations concerning “misreadings” in LXX- Amos while prepating the apparatus for the new edition of Biblia Hebraica (Editio Quinta) and had text-critical purposes in mind, it is only natural that his categories and the framework of his discussion would have been influenced by that work. I have been studying LXX-Amos from a different perspective, analyzing the technique of the translator, and from my perspective there are other plausible explanations for the differences between the LXX and the MT in Amos that Gdston discusses. I think itis likely that some of the oventy- three “misreadings” that Gelston attributed to indistinct writing or damage to > E."Toy “Did the Septuagint Translators Always Understand Their Hebrew Text,” in E, Tov (cd, the Greok and Hebrew Bible: Coiecied Esays on the Septuagins (Leiden, 1999), pp. 210- 211, See alo E. Tow, The Test-Critical Use of the Sepruagine in Biblical Research 2nd eds Jerusa lem, 1997), pp. 168-169. 81 Muraoks, "Hebrew Hpax Leyomena and Septaugint Lexicography” in C. F. Cox (ed) ViL Congres ofthe Intemational Organizaiion jor Septuagint and Cognate Srudies, Lewven 1989 (Adanta, 1991), pp. 205.222. In this article Muracka looks at examples of hapax legonrena in L2OGMP in order to grapple with the issue of how the translator read or understood his Semitic ‘original, an issue cha is foundetional for LXX lexicography. » Mutaoka, “Hebrew Hapax Legomena,” p. 208; see also p. 217. J. Bart, Comparative Philology and he Tex ofthe Old Teament (Oxford, 1968), p. 267. concludes, “In a considerable majority ‘of examples the versional evidence can be explained more easily in some other way than aan indication thar unusual Hebrew words were exactly known to the transiarors.”E. Glerny Vetus Tstamentuom 57 (2007) 524-547 527 the Varlage of LXX-Amos are examples of aclequate translations or paraphrases of the MT, and many could be explained better as the translator's manipula- tion or mancuvering of the text!” difficulty he found in it."! In my classification of these translations as “free” | have tried to follow catego- ries Bart and TTov suggest for analyzing the degree of lteralness of a translation.”? Because the examples in Gelston’ article all relate to semantic understanding, this study focuses on one category. Barr cals it the “Accuracy and level of seman- tic information, especially in cases of metaphor and idiom,” and ‘Tov calls his corresponding category “Linguistic adequacy of lexical choice.” In the next section [ will survey Gelston’s twenty-three examples! on a case- by-case basis to test his conclusions and to see if the differences might be explained more plausibly as free translation of a text corresponding to the MT. In my analysis of Gelston’s ewenty-three examples, I will clasify them according to different translation techniques." in order to attempt co make sense of some Translation or Paraphrase Five of the twenty-three examples of “misreadings” that Gelston finds in LXX- ‘Amos are not really misreadings but can be explained as linguistically adequate ° See E, Tov, “Did the Septuagint Transiators Always Undersiand their Hebrew Text” ep. pp. 210-211, where Tov discusses “pseudo-variants’ in the mind of the LXX rranslator and “paleographical manveuviing” by the transavor. See the discussion in J. K. Palmer, Nor Made swith Tracing Pape: Stas inthe Septuagint of Zechariah (Ph.D. Dis. University of Cambridge, 2004), exp. pp. 40-69 and 80-105. [am not arguing that these manipulations were always done “knowingly the degree of incentionalty on the par ofthe translator no doubs varies from example to example, and he may. rot have been fully Conscious of some of the hermeneutical and interpretive techniques chat he used to make sense of hard places in the text. Furthermore, what appears to be “manipulation” ‘ofthe Vorlage from our perspective woukl probably have been considered ro be “interpretation” From the perspective ofthe translator. He was merely trying to ger ar the meaning ofthe text and he used various techniques as hermeneutical cools in dificult vexs, On the intencion of the trandator, se A. Acimelacus, On the Tail of che Sepuagine Tanslaers(Karapen, 1993), pp. 65-76. J, Barn The Typology of Litenlism in Ancient Biblical Tansitions (Gietingen, 1979), esp. pp. 20-61 and ow, The Text Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research, pp. 17-29. © A eopy of Gelston’s chart is included in this paper. (Reprinted from A, Gelston (2002), “Some Hebrew Misreadings in the Septuagint of Amos,” VI'52(4), pp. 493-500.) The categories are not mutually exclusive and cher is influence from several categories in some of the examples528 No 2L 22 23 W. E, Glenny / Vetus Testamentuon 57 (2007) 52: Gelston’s Reference Hebrew - MT ops 7“: ope onn me mas now os ome 7:1.12-14 on Tne wpd 84.3 8:6.7 9:7.19 9212.2 oExdn bea po wr Misreacing rpIa 72 nips ed 7. noe non “nom m mn anh) woo roaon cen ono as Chart. Hebrew misreadings in the LXX of Amos LXX by vaxnuptp viod dep xai fhaBov is éyauspoy ratéeiov xe pang Berperstér ovyed droxaiopévong vonov Bpovtiy tov rpiotev atitod d dapov ovbevotor evou cn’ pyc dwaordv ‘iexaw Bpodyos ig Tory tig 1 mpai kal dnd nowt éx BSepov Extntiowaw * The same misreading occurs in $:9.6, 9:10.10, 3:11.13, and 6:8.14, translations or paraphrases of the MT. In his second example Gelston sug- gests thar there was a confusion of daleth and resh in the name Ben Hadad in Amos i 4, resulting in the LXX uanslation “son of Ader.’ However, this is unlikely since the name is always translaced this way in the LXX (3 Kgdms xi 14, 17, 18-20; xv 20; xxi 1s etc) with the single exception of 3 Kgdms xxi 17 where it is left untranslated, Furthermore, every one of the thirty-nine times that “Son of Ades” or “Ader” occurs in the LX itis a uanslation of Ben Hadad. ora translation of a pronoun referring to Ben Hadad. Smith notes that possibly “Ader” is “a dialectical reproduction of the Assyrian Adad-idri, which also endsW. E, Glenny / Vetus Testamentum 57 (2007) 524-547 529 with an‘? sound,” but this is too remote to be persuasive." It is possible that the LXX translators wanted to remove any allusion to the West Semitic storm- god God Hadad, better known by the epither Baal."®’The name of this god was a common element in the names of rulers, and his worship continued into the Hellenistic era and beyond.” Ie is also possible that “son of Ader” is simply a different form of the name that happened early on, similar to the two spellings Nebuchadsezzer and Nebuchadnezzer; this would involve adissimilation of ewo consonants,!8 Gelston’s third example from ii 11 is another adequate translation of the MT. According to the LX of ii 11 the Lord “chose from among your sons for prophets,” using the first person singular of the verb LopBdve (®haPov) for the MT’sBip§). Gelsron suggests that the translator instead read the first singular form of 129, misreading yad plus memas heth, which is 2 complex misceading. In fact, the misreading is large enough here that he suggests there was a smudge, blot, or tear in the manuscript." However, the semantic domains of the Greek and Hebrew terms overlap here, and there is no need to suggest a “misreading” to account for the LXX translation. The overlap in meaning is demonstrated in the call of Amos in vii 15 (‘and the Lord took (or chose) me from the sheep” LXX), where the LKX uses évathensPévo to describe Amos’ call (translating the Hebrew verb ip). In fact, it may be that the translator chose the verb Lay Béve to describe the call of the prophets in ii 11, instead of several other possible words, because it would be consistent with the descrip- tion of Amos’ call in vii 15.2° At least two of Gelston’s examples seem ro be “explanatory” of “interpre- tive” translations rather than “mistranslations” or “misreadings.” In his fourth ‘example (ii 11) he allows that the translator cither misread the plural suffix on the noun “Nazarites,” or ignored it, or modified che translation, resulting in the rendering énauév (consecration”).”' Gelston's uncertainty about this example alerts the reader to its improbability. It is noteworthy that the same Hebrew noun (“Nazarites”) occurs again in ii 12, where itis translated by the Greek perfect passive participle of éyi6e (‘consecrated ones’). The translators 'S) G.-Y, Smith, Amor (Ross-Shite, 1998), p- 62. © W. Rudolph, JoelAros-Obsdja-lora (KAT 1312; Giiterdoh, 1971). p. 126 "ABD 3:11 © R. P Gordon suggested this possibility in a private conversation on August 18, 2005, “Hebrew Misteadings,"p. 499. ® The addition of the prefix to the Greek verb in vii 15 may suggest a sight elevation of Amos cover che other prophets. or emphasize his humble station (in LXX) before his eal, 2” Gelston, “Hebrew Misteadings,”p. 496530 WE. Glermy / Veius Tesamentumn 57 (2007) 524-547 of the LX render the Hebrew term “Nazirite” with a variety of words, some- times using the Hebrew loanword, vatipaios (Judg xiii 5, 7: xvi 17: 1 Macc ili 49; Lam iv 7). Here in verses 11 and 12, as often in the LXX, the technical term “has been explained rather than translated.”2* In example five from ili 7 the noun raxdetav, “instruction,” translates “7, which means “his secret” or “his plan.” In many other contexts the Hebrew word means “council” or “meeting,” but that meaning does not seem to be appropriate here. Furthermore, in this context the emphasis is not on secrecy as much as “counsel” or “plan.” However, the translation is not what one would expect; normally nosdeia translates 7339. Gelston suggests that the translator confused daleeh and resh and made significant changes in the Hebrew leceers and their order (metathesis and the replacement of a final waw by an initial yod), resulting in “19° (‘faulefinder,” or more likely a passive participle of the verb 76°, meaning “teach,” “listen to reason,” or “chastise”).”” However, the Hebrew word “counsel,” which occurs at least 21x in MT, is tanslated by raxSelow, “instruction?” in Ezekiel xiii 9 also. Thus, the somewhat compli- cated mistake that Gelston suggests is unlikely. Arietti suggests it is another example of the translator's difficulty “with words which have two or more meanings,”™ but thac dors not explain how or why the translator rendered it as he did. Parks notes that the way the cranslator atrived at this reading cannot be determined, but he suggests it is “probably an interpretation of what ‘secret counsel’ should be.”* The Greck word would resonate well with a Greek audi- cence, and in this context it would make the message of the prophets, who represent the Lord with this naBeia, attractive to Greek readers. It is not a bad translation, and itis fitting explanation of the Lord!’ “counsel” or “plan.” Gelston’s example seven fiom Amos iii 9 is in a verse where the translator has historicized or updated the phrase “palaces of Ashdod” to “regions among the Assyrians.” Gelston suggests that the translator misread one radical (taking a mem for a heb) and metathesized ewo others and added a waw. I suggest that the translation is not a bad one and makes sense in this historicizing concext. 2 J. M. Dimes, The Sepruagint of Arie A Study in interpretation (Ph.D. Diss: Londen, 1991), p.101 29 Gebton, “Hebrew Misresdings,” pp. 494-496. 2 JA. Aner, A Study in the Septuagine of Amos (Ph.D. Diss; Stanford University, 1972). p. 31 see also SF, Johnson, The Septuagint of Aros (Ph.D. Diss: University of Chicago, 1936). p. 36, 28 AW. Patk, The Book of Amos as Composed and Read in Aniguiry (SBL 37; New York 2001), p17.W. E, Glenny / Venus Testamentuom 57 (2007) 524-547 531 ‘The noun 7307, the root of AEs, meaning “dismay, consternation, panic,” is transtared with a number of Greek nouns with negative connotations, including Exotactg (“astonishment, trance”) in Zech xiy 13, which is similar to the translation Gavpacsé (“marvelous things”) in Amos iii 9. Thus, the translation in the LXX is linguistically possible and avoids the complicated misreading that Gelston suggests. However, there is another piece of evidence about this proposed misreading that should also be considered. The word translated “marvelous things” (Boopasté), when in the neuter plural, as here, normally refers to the works of God on behalf of his people, for which he deserves praise (e.g., Ex xxxiv 103 Josh iii 5; xiii 19; Tob xii 22; Ps xcvii [xcviii MT] 1; cv [evi MT] 22; Sir xi 4). However, in the prophets the substantival use of this word has a different emphasis; it still refers to the works of God, but it refers to his judgment, sometimes in an eschatological context (Isa xv 1; Dan xii 6; Mic vii 15; in Isa iii 3 it Functions as an adjective). Muraoka notes that the word has a nega- tive connotation in Amos fii 927 In Daniel (8) viii 24 the neuter plural form of the word functions as an adverb modifying the destruction by Antiochus IV (“and he will destroy wonderfully” or if ic is Functioning as a substantive, “he will destroy marvelous things’). In the Daniel context Daniel receives a vision of Antiochus’ destructive power and military successes and Antiochus destroys “mighty men and the holy people.” Thus, the use of this word elsewhere in the prophets suggests that in Amos ili 9 the Assyrians and the Egyptians are being summoned to view the marvelous judgments that che Lord has decreed for Antiochus to bring on Samaria (cf. Dan viii 20-26; xii 6). The rendering of “Ashdod” as “Assyrians” in che frst part of che verse supports that understand- ing and suggests the use of Boropasté is continuing the historicizing that he began in the first part of che verse. Double Translation Several times in LXX-Amos “there are additions to the text in the form of double translations, translations of one Hebrew word by two in Greek” (ii 85 2 L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, The Hebrews and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Tetament (Leiden, 2000), p. 552. 2” T, Muraoks, A Greek-Linglish Lexicon of the Septuagint: Chiefy af the Pemateuch ard the Twelve Prophess Peeters, 2002), p. 256.532 WE. Genny fVerus Testamentum 5? (2007) 524-547 iii 15; vi 3). Two of these are listed in Gelston’s twenty-three examples of “misreadings.” Example eight from LXX-Amos iii 15 begins with a double cranslation ("I will demolish and I will smite”) of the initial Hebrew verb (“Lwill smite” also “beat,” “wound.” “destroy,” etc.). Gelston suggests that the translator read the Hiphil of 173 for the Hiphil of 721 found in the MT; this involves a misreading of the two letters “3 as the single letter 9, a misreading large enough that it may be better explained by a smudge, blot or small tear in the manuscript2” He allows that in such cases involving two letters there may have been damage to the Vorlage>® The problem with Gelstor’s theory is that it does not explain the presence of the second verb in the Greek text (ratécow, “smite”), nor does it consider the translator's tendency to translate one Hebrew word by ewo Greek words. Ariettid suggestion that such double translations may result from “the transmission of the text when the marginal note of one copyist was incorporated into the text of the next,” grapples with the problem of two Greek verbs representing the one Hebrew verb.” However, in light of the translator tendency to translate double, itis more likely that in ii 15 he desired to emphasize the total destruction of Samaria (with the addition af the verb ovyyéq, “I will demolish”), which is clearly the point of the context, and ‘not just to say thac the Lord “smites” Samaria, which is the idea of raxéoow, the verb normally used to translate 722 and always used for thar purpose in Amos (iv 9: vi 11 six 1). By his “double translation” the translator takes precau- tions to communicate the full meaning of the Hebrew verb. “The second double translation among Gelston’s examples, like the one we have just considered, could also be called an addition or plus in the LXX.* In. the description of sins against the poor in viii 4 (example 20) the translator renders SERUT (apparently “those who are swallowing up” [or “hounding”}) by of Sxepifiovtes eis x8 xpwi (“who are oppressing in the morning”). Gelston, suggests that ei td xpi meaning “in the morning” or “early” is a “misreading” of the Hebrew as hishkim (0°07), apparencly the Hiphil perfect of D2. The misreading Gelston suggests is complex; it involves ignoring the aleph, pe haps cansed by defective spelling, and confusing the pe for a kaph. Here mote likely that the translator was aware of two meanings for the homonym, Aries, Aron, p. 4 ° Gelscon, “Hebrew Misreadings,” pp. 495, 499. % Gelston, “Hebrew Misreadings,” p. 499. 2 Aviat, Armns, p44 © Avieti, Amos p. 42.W.E. Gleny Vetus Testamentum 57 (2007) 524-547 533 Aik, which can mean “swallow up” (or “hound”) as well as “gasp” or “pant after” (both of these verbs are in the Qal stem). The latter verb root can have the idea of “panting after with desire” (Ps cxix 31) or “be eager” (Job v 5), which is the sense of the Greek phrase tig +9 xpai in Amos viii 4." Ie seems that the Greek translator has not misread the Hebrew participle O°BSan, but rather has done his best to communicate the full meaning of a verb, which is unclear to him. The increased intensity in the LXX in the remainder of the verse in comparison co the Hebrew is consistent with the increased intensity caused in the frst clause by the double translation. Homonyms and Homographs Another type of difficulty often encountered by the translator was Hebrew homonymsand homographs. Some of the “misreadings” that Gelston suggests are better understood as the confusion resulting from a misunderstanding of a homonym or homograph in the immediate context of the example in the Vorlage. IF the translator misunderstood a homonym, he had to try to make the best sense he could of the rest of the context, and this seems co be the situ- ation thar the translator faced in example 9 from iv 2. There are two hom- ‘onyms in this verse that apparently confused the translator. The nouns7rO and 779, which are identical in the plural as in iv 2 (M173), mean respectively “pot, cub” or “hook.”** The wanslator understands the word 1 have the first meaning (“cauldrons"), and the traditional interpretation of the MT is the second (“hooks”). ‘The other pair of homonyms in this passage is ]¥ and 72, which are also identical in the plural (7138). The meaning of the first, which is the traditional understanding of MT, is debated but is probably something like “hook” or “butcher's hook;” the meaning of the second is “shield,” which is how the translator understood it. Thus the translator understood the verse to speak of “cauldrons” and “shields” rather than “barbs” and “hooks,” and with this orientation he manipulated several words to make sense of the verse. Gelston suggests that because of an obscure text the translator misread 7}, a hapax legomenon and a fish word in construct with “hooks;” he suggests the translator understood it to be T717, meaning something like “burning” or “boiling” and modifying “caldrons.” Thus, the connection the translator makes 59 Muraok, A Greek English Lexicon ofthe Sopruagiat,p. 495. 2° Nore that she sime Hebrew verb form is also translated contextually in i? ) Kochler and Baumgartner. 752534 W.E. Glenny / Vetus Testamentum 57 (2007) 524-547 with ‘droxaroytvovs, or “boiling,” is a cognate of the verb 777, meaning “to stack in circles." In fact in Ezek xxiv 5 moxatio trans- lates 757." I can agree with Gelston that the translator may have rendered the text as having that reading, but I am not convinced it was because the writing in the Vorlage was obscure. I would suggest he read the word that way because he was trying to make sense of a text that was obscure ro him because of the homonyms and rare words in it; as a result he reasoned there must be a mis- take in the text, or lsc he reasoned he must manipulate the text. It should be noted that he seems to manipulate freely several words in this verse in his attempt to make sense of i." Another of Gelsion’s suggested “misreadings” that may be influenced more by ahomograph than obscurity in the Varlage is number twelve in iv 13. There icis possible that the cause of the Greek tv ypiar6v orito% may be the Hebrew ‘WT, written in defective script. However, there are several other possible explanations also. Satterthwaite notes that at the very least the LXX transla- tion is a “concretization” compared to the MT.” He classifies this as a “theo- logical” interpretation, agreeing with Park, who comments that ‘this reading is most likely intentional in light of the inclusion of gentiles into the Jewish religion.” " to come up Conjectural Renderings Tov discusses six different types of conjectural renderings in the Septuagint: Untranslated words (thus transliterated); Contextual guesses; Contextual manipulation; Reliance on parallelism; Employment of general words; and Ezymological renderings. A study of the context of Gelstor's “misreadings” © Koehler and Baumgartner, p. 217, Francis Brown, S. R. Driver and C. A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon ofthe Olé lesament (Osxtord, 1968), p. 189, suggest the meaning “heap up pl.” © Dines, Ams p. 125, See Dines fora helpful discussion of several OT passages that may have influenced the translator in his translation AéPineas dnoxaIouEvors, ™ See Dines, Ams, pp. 120-137. 2 BE, Saterthwaite, “The Translators a: Imperialisis: And Other Aspects of the Sepruagine ‘Translation ofthe Book ofthe Twelve.” An expanded version ofa paper given to che Cambridge University OT Seminar, Ocioher 1997, p. 25. “Parks Amos p. 151. The Greek text reads, “Iam the one strengthening thunder and creating wind and proclaiming to humanity his Messiah.”W. E, Glenny (Vetus Testamentum 57 (2007) 524-547 535 suggests thar several of them could be conjectural renderings fitting into one of Tov’s categories." Reliance on Parallelism ‘Two of Gelston’s misreadings can be explained by the translator's reliance on parallelism in contexts that were unclear to him. The first is example 13 from v9. Here the translator apparently has trouble with the frst word, 73 which only occurs four times in MY (Job ix 27; x 20; and Ps xxix 13 [14 LXX)). Its meaning is obscure, apparently something like “Aare up, cheer, be happy, brighten up." In MT Amos y 9 reads something like: “Who makes descruction flash out against the strong, so that destruction comes upon the fortress.” ‘The repetition of the noun 7 (destruction), which occurs in both clauses, suggests parallel ideas. The second clause has the common verb 873, which the translator renders wich énéeyo, “bring upon,” and it appears that in his ignorance of the verb in the first clause he chooses a verb with a similar idea. ‘Thus he uses the verb Siaipéa, meaning “dispense” Gelston proposes that the translator confuses the beth of 247357 for a pe and reads 2 Hiphil participle of 28, a stem not found elsewhere in MT, and thus the translator derives his translation from that misreading. However, because of the unustal alternative Gelston suggests and the difficulty of the reading in the MT, itis more likely the translator guessed on the basis of the context that the verbs in the ewo clauses were parallel and translated accordingly. In example 15 from vi 3 the translator also may have relied on parallelism to compensate for his ignorance of a Hebrew verb. This Hebrew verb only occurs twice in MT, both times as Piel participles (sce also Isa Lxiv 5), and Gelston allows, “Ignorance of the Hebrew word on the part of the translator may have been a factor here.” He suggests the translator confused daleth and resh and added another revh. Thus he suggests that the translator read a form * In this section am focusing on six categories in Tov, “Did the Septuagint Translators Always Understand their Hebrew Texe” © Gelston, “Hebrew Misreadings,” p. 495, notes that this coukl bea “mishearing” rather than “misreading” * S.M. Paul, Amos (Minneapolis, 1991), p. 169; Johnson, “Amos,” p. 34; Kocher and Baum. sgertes p. 132. The Targum also has crouble wich this ver, crarsating it, “causes to prevail” (K. J, Catheatt and R. B. Gordon, The Targem ofthe Minor Prophrts(vol. 4 in The Aramaic Bible Eslinburgh, 1989), p. 85. “© Geiston, “Hebrew Misreadings,” p. 496536 WE Genny / Vetus Testamentuon 57 (2007) 524-547 of 772, “make a vow,” for the MT’s Piel participle from 772, “exclude, put away” (here in the sense of refusing to think about},” and asa result the trans- lacor rendered it with eX youen, which is a common cranslation for 7G. I sug- gest that if the translator did not know the first verb, which possibility Gelscon even allows here, then he decided how to translate it on the basis of the paral- lelism of the two lines; the MT could be translated, “You that put far away the evil day and cause the seat of violence 10 come near.” He may have chosen the verb eXgonan because it is similar to the Hiphil verb in the second clause, “cause to come near,” which, with his ignorance of the meaning of the first verb, seemed parallel to the first clause."* “Praying for” is a similar idea to “causing to come near.” It is also possible that if he did not know the first verb, the translator guessed at its meaning, or translated it as ¢ Hebrew verb similar to the form he saw before him, or simply misread the verb. This leads us to the next type of conjectural renderings. Contextual Guesses fov uses Gelston’ sixth example, the word M378 (sing. ITN) from iii 9, as an illustration of another class of conjectural renderings, the translator's resort to a contextual guess. He suggests that this word, which means “fortress” or “palace,” was difficule for the translators, and tha there is a recurring pattern of guessing at its meaning in the Septuagint. ‘The only place that this Hebrew word is cranslaved “fortress” or “palace” is in the “Writings” (Ps xlvii 4, 14; cxxi 7; Prxviii 19; Lam ii 5, 7; and 2 Chron xxxvi 19). In fact, the LXX trans- larors translated its about 32 occurrences with ten different Greek terms. The word occurs twelve times in Amos, and itis likely that the translator of Amos did not know the word; he consistently translates it BepéMov in its seven occurrences in the first seven judgment oracles in chapters iii. In the five times after chapter two that the Hebrew word occurs in Amos (iii 9 {2x], 10, 11; © Bxactly what form Gelston is suggesting here is nor clear. The suggested verb occurs only in the Qal stem in the MT; which would not make sense with the form he is suggesting. How do wwe account for the initial ment? It does occur in the Hiphil in later literature, but the Hiphil parciciple would drop the initial mir in a poh nu verb. In later liverature the Hipkill means “to pput a person under the influence of a vow" (M. Jastiow, Dictionary of the Targumins, Talmud Babi, Verusbal’ and Midvashic Literature (New York, 1996), p. 880} “© Gelston, “Hebrew Misreadings,” works from Zeigler’ text; but many mss and) Rahlf’s text read Zpgoue instead of ezonicn in vi 3. This reading isin some ways superior on the basis of incexnal evidence (esp. the eg following the yeib). The reading in Rahl?s is equally if not more close to the meaning ofthe second Hebrew ver.W. £. Glenmy / Vesus Testamentum 37 (2007) 524-547 537 vi 8) it is consistently cranslated yhpar. Tov proposes, “The representation of PONS as “land” may reflect contextual exegesis..., but the frequent occur- rences of this rendering may also indicate the existence of a lexical-exegetical tradition.”"” Gelston argues that the translator mistakenly read Mv78, the plu- ral of HOON, for MUITK, and thus translated the word zpo.* He asks, if the translator “were merely guessing at the meaning of the word, could he not have made a better guess?” However, in response to Gelston, the translator had to find a translation that would work: in all four occurrences of this unfa- miliar word in Amos iii 9-11 (and in vi 8), and this translation works for that. Furthermore, Gelston’s theory that it is a misreading requires confusion not only of resrand daleth, butit ao requires that the translator overlook the nun. Beyond that it contradicts the translators understanding of the noun (7x) in chapters i-ii.” I propose that the translator does the best he can, perhaps influenced by the same rendering in Micah v 4 and Hosea viii 14, It is also very likely that the LXX translator was influenced by the phrase ["8, later in iii 9, which he does not translate, because with his use of yapa he does not need anything corresponding to 7"83. “Thus, it is likely the translator has taken his cue for translating the obscure MUN from 77N3, which modifies this Hebrew noun in its second occurrence in the verse. Contextual Manipulation In light of the previous examples it should not be hard to grasp this category of conjectural renderings. Amos iv 5 (example ten) is a “nearly hopeless translation,” according to Johnson.” Gelston acknowledges that the cranslator evidently failed to under- stand the first three words and made the best sense he could of them. However, #9 Tow, “Did the Sepniagine Tandators Always Understand their Hebrew Tex?,” p. 206. Ina foor- note he acknowledges the possibilty cha che graphic similarity berween JO18 and 127% somehow influenced this rendering: however thisis quite diferene than suggesting damage inthe Vorlage. + Gebton, “Hebrew Misreadings,” pp. 454-497. ©! Gelscon, “Hebrew Misteadings,” p. 497. % Darks, Ames p. 168. %Y Gelston, “Hebrew Misrcadings,” p. 497, suggests that the meaning in Micah v4 may have ben suggested by the parallel 778 > See Tow, “Did the Septuagint Translators Always Understand their Hebrew Text,” pp. 210-211. 59 Johnson, Arnos p33. % Gelston, “Hebrew Misteadings,”p. 494.538 WE: Glenny / Verus lestamentum 57 (2007) 524 he also suggests “that the misreading of the daleth as resh in the third word (F7{F] was a significant factor in his rendering of the clause.”** This seems unlikely, however, because the verb (“offer sacrifice”), which is the first word, occurs 119 times in the MT and five times in the MP where ic is always trans- lated correctly. It is more likely that che translator is changing the focus of the context, The four ironic imperatives in the previous verse, commanding the Israelites to come to Bethel and to Gilgal and co sin in heir offeting of sacrifices, are all changed to aorist indicatives in the LXX, and in verse five the same pattern continues with the change of the first two commands in the Hebrew (the first is an infinitive absolute functioning as an imperative) to third person plural aorist indicatives. Thus in verse 5 in the LXX it is not the Israelites who are commanded to offer sacrifices, but it is a plural chird parey that read the Law outside and called for public confessions. It is also impor- tant 10 sce that the cranslator(s) of the MP did not seem to understand all of the Hebrew terms for the sacrifices. Arictti believes that M272, “free will offerings? in the second clause of verse 5 was unknown to the rranslators of the prophets.”” Ihey erasiate it with 6uoA6yax; (Hos xiv 5) or ouoRoyia: (Kz xlvi 12), as here in Amos iv 5. It is also interesting thar in the Prophets the translators ncver translate 777 as “thank offering;” even when that is the Hebrew mean- ing (as in Jer xvii 26 where it is rendered “praise” and Jer oo.ii 11 (LXX xf 11] where it is rendered “gifts” fits other occurrences in the Prophets in Isa li 3 “praise;” Jer x00 19 [LXX xxxvii 19] “singers;” and Jonah ii 10 “praise”). It is also possible that the translator would not have recognized the word forleaven here; it never occurs elsewhere in the MP (22x in MT).>* What is clear is that the translator removes God's ironic commands for Israel 0 go 10 the places of ‘worship in the Northern Kingdom and offer sacrifices, and he puts them in the past tense in iv 4: then he misses or changes the sacrificial vocabulary in i 5, so the first two clauses describea group, apparently priests outside of the ‘Temple in the past, reading the Law and calling for public confessions, With such major changes taking place in this context, it seems unlikely that the confusion of a daleth and a resh was the initiating faccor: furthermore, it is hard © Gelston, "Hebrew Misreadings.” p. 494 6 The Taigum also puss verse 4 in the past tense and the editors suggest ic was probably. “to avoid Yahweh’ involvernent in a summons to evil” (Catheare and Gordon, Targum, p. 83, 1.6). °° Arietti, Amos, p. 118. 5 The related verb only ovcury one time in LXX MP in Hosea vii 4, and there itis the Qul infinitive construct, which is recognized by the translator in a context describing making bread.WE, Glenny / Verus Testamentum 57 (2007) 524-547 539) to believe that the translator was confused here by one word. It appears that he failed to understand several words in this context, and it also appears that there is evidence of historicizing interpretation in this passage, in which the transla- tor manipulates the text, trying to make it relevant to his audience. Example 19 from vii 1 is also likely an illustration of contextual manipula- tion rather than difficulty in deciphering Hebrew letters, as Gelston suggests.” “This is one of the three passages thac Gelscon addresses in more detail. Here the manipulation probably results from ignorance of two Hebrew words and from the influence of other texts, ‘The five words of this cause in the MT read, “and behold, it was the latter growth after the king's mowings.” The suggested misceading involves the three middle words of this clause (42 “D8 3p), which hae suggests were misread as “one locust, Gog” (737k P). Few, including me, question the retroversion that he suggests, but | do question whether it was caused by the translators difficulty in deciphering some of the Hebrew leters. Ie is important to realize that this part of the verse is difficult in the MT, and the LXX reflects that. The first of the three Hebrew words in question (6p “Tate grass, late growth’) is very rare, occurting only twice in the MT, and its previous occurrence is earlier in this verse. Gelston suggests that the translator translates it there with £oG0vA, meaning “early,” or “fiom the east.” Since he renders it quite differently in its second occurrence in the same verse, Gelston argues that the Vorlage must have been obscure. However studies by Dines, Parks, and Ariett all give evidence that the translator felt free to translate the same word or construction differently, and this would be even more likely in situations where he did not know the meaning of the word.” Furthermore, it is more likely that the translator does not translate the first occurrence of the word, but instead skips it, because ofits difficulty. Thisis the understanding of ‘Tov in his LXX—MT parallels, and Hatch and Redpath mark Gelston’s sug- gested translation, éa®ivi, with an obelus, indicating the identification of the Greek and Hebrew is doubtful here Therefore, rather than confusing two leccers and changing the order of another, as Gelston proposes, itis more likely that the translator skipped t)99 in its first occurrence in the verse and then rendered it as “locust” in its second occurrence, because another word for 2 Gelscon, “Hebrew Miseadings.” pp. 497-498 © Parks, Amos, p. 166; J. M. Dines, The Sepruagint (Lonclon, 2004), pp. 54-56; Arieti, Amos, pp. 105-106. 4) E, Hatch and H. A. Redpath, A Concordance ro he Sepeuagins (Grand Rapids, 1983 repr), p.592.540 WE Genny / Verus Tstamentum 57 (2007) 524-547 locust ('3:) occurs earlier in the verse. The translation of "3 (“mowings”) with 2 Gog’) is, in Gelston’ words, “curious.” He allows that “the eschatologi- cal expectations associated with Gog were strong at the time when the LXX translation was being made, but because the translators rendered 13 accurately in its other three occurrences in the MT, he feels a misreading is more likely here than “lexical ignorance or uncertainty.”® However, the other three occur- rences of the word are in Deut xviii 4; Job xxi 20; and Ps [xxii 6 [LXX lxxi 6], and the translators (probably different than the translator of Amos) always understand it as “Heece” (xovpé in Deut and Job and néxog in Ps Ixxi [MT lxxii] where in the MT it refers to “mown grass”). Therefore, Gelston’s confidence in the translator's knowledge of the meaning of the word in Amos may be unfounded, especially in a context of locusts. The third misreading in this phrase that Gelston suggests is the simple confusion of a daleth for the resh in “OS. ‘This is certainly conceivable, but it is also very possible thac if the translator was having problems with the verse, he would manipulate the radi- cals in this word to make sense of the verse, In summary, Gelston’s proposal for Amos vii | is not persuasive. The changes he suggests are too complex, the Hebrew vocabulary is difficult, and the translation of the whole passage does noc evidence a concern for a high degree of literalness. Furthermore, when one factors in the eschatological expectations associated with Gog that he men- tions, it is much more likely that the translator was unsure of the meaning of the Hebrew text and manipulated it to make it conform to his worldview and speak to his audience. “The three examples Gelston gives from Amos vi 7 (examples 16-18) prob- ably belong in this category also. The fact that he gives three examples from this verse raises questions immediately, and ic is interesting that the translator’ biggest problem in this verse was not one of Gelston's three examples. The most difficult Hebrew word is M7, “cultic feast.” which only occurs else- where in Jer xvi 5 in the MT, apparently referring to a “funeral feast” in a context of lament and mourning, The translator of Amos vi 7 renders it “neigh ing.” for no other apparent reason than it fits his understanding of the context. In his search to make sense of the second clause in the verse he reads E77 “stretched our, loungers” as 2°01 “horses.” The word in che MT is rare, occur- ring only four times (see also Amos vi 4; Ex xxvi 13; Ezek xxiii 15), although a “Hebrew Misreadings,” p. 498. © Gelston, “Hebrew Misreadings," p. 498.WE. Glenny / Vetus Testamentum 57 (2007) 524-547 54 the translator understood it three verses earlier in the context of sleeping and couches (vi 4). The misreading that Gelston suggests for this example (number 18) involves the confusion of heth and samekh and not reading, or ignoring, the resh. This amount of confusion as well as the other changes in the context and the addition of “out of Ephraim” at the end of the verse suggest that the translator was manipulating the text to make sense of it and per- haps to communicate his own ideas.* Dines suggests that the translator has exploited obscure language here. The two misreadings Gelston suggests in the first part of the verse (examples 16-17), are notobviously related to changes in the second part of the vetse, but it is likely that after he manipulated the second part to refer to “the neighing of horses from Ephraim” to make some sense out of it, the translator also adjusted the easier words in the first part of the verse. Example 21 from Amos viii 6 is another example of a word that the transla~ tor did not understand, and therefore he compensated by contextual manipu- lation. The Hebrew noun 722 only occurs twice in the MT; it has the basic meaning of “refuse, sweepings, folds [of lesh]” and in Job xli 15 it refers to the folds of the crocodile’s fleshy belly or its dewlaps. The translator of Job gives a general translation to the Hebrew, “folds of his flesh” (773 *)B9), translating it “flesh of his body” (stipxes 8% oduartos a<08). Ie appears that his general translation is a guess from the context. The translator of Amos takes the same approach, giving the last clause of viii 6 a general translation, It is very likely that he did not know the word 9593, “refuse,” and he does not seem to know the word with which it is in construct, 73, meaning “grain,” which he trans- lated with revfyiatog, meaning “product or produce.” This Hebrew word only ‘occurs three other times in MP (Joel ii 24; Amos v 11; viii 5), two of those times in Amos, where it is translated differently each time. Therefore, in his perplexity he renders 559 as ‘930, “of all.” Here I am agreeing with Gelston's suggested retroversion, but again I question his theory that it was based on the confusion of pe and Aaph. Rather, because of his lack of knowledge of the words in the clause, the translator generalizes the language and manipulates the radicals in 920, Asa result he changes the meaning from the Hebrew, “we will sell the refuse of the wheat,” to “we will trade in every kind of produce.” % See Dines, “Amos,” pp. 196-199 for some suggestions ofthe translator's ideas. © Dines, “Amos,” p. 193. See abo i a, it 12, iv 2, and vi 3. % LXX-Ames vi 7a is very difficult to inrerpret, but the misreadings Gelston suggests are not compelling342 We E. Glenny / Vetus Testamentum 57 (2007) 524-547 Example 22 focuses on the last word in Amos ix 7. In the MT Yahweh asks Israel a series of rhetorical questions designed to demonstrate his control over the nations. The last question involves Yahweh bringing the Syrians “from Kir” CyP2). Gelscon suggests that here che translator misread the yod, think- ing it was a waw, and this resulted in “YP2, meaning “from the fountain [or source of water)." As a result he translated it &x BéBpov, “out of the trench” or ‘out of the pit.” This is a word with cultic sacrificial connotations; in the worship of the gods of the underworld the Bé0p0¢ takes the place of the altar, ‘or Bios (Od. X. 517).** In LXX-Ezekiel BéOp0g represents the depths of the earth, which is the place of the “uncircumcised” dead, like the princes of Assur and the Pharaoh (soi 20; xxxi 145 xxii 18, 21, 24, 29, 30; also Sir xxi 10) Most important for our purposes the Hebrew word 7p is translaced differently in the LXX each of the four times it occurs in MT. It is not translated in 2 Ki xvi 9, and in Isa xxii 6 the translation is very difficult and it is hard co tell how the translator rendered it; it seems that “YP and the verb thar follows it corre- spond to avvayay. In Amos 5 it corresponds to énixAntac, in a phrase refer- ring to the “designated” people of Syria.” The evidence suggests that the translator may not have known this word, but even ifhe did not he could have understood it was a geographical location in Amos ix 7, as the Targum does, translating it “Cyrene.” “There are several pieces of evidence that bring Gelston's proposal into ques- tion here. First, che word he suggests, 73, does not have a prepositional prefix; the four radicals mean “fountain” of “source.” Yer the translator renders it “our of the pit,” with the prefix éx. If the translator were following the text as dlosely as Gelsion suggests then where does the preposition come from? Or is he also suggesting that the translator was manipulating the tex? Second, if the translator is trying to render the text very literally, how would he miss the fact that the context describes the places from which Yahweh brought up © The Hebrew noun childbieth (Brown, Driver, Brigs, p. 881). These meanings might be close to what the translator has in mind here © The woud is used for a ritual pie for offerings co the gods of the underworld, LS), p. 320. ‘© The word can have a positive or negative connotation, Herodotus and Thucydides used ic for people fiom abroad, who were summoned or called on as metcenaries (LSJ, pp. 638-639; Herodotus 5,75: 7, 203; Thucydides 4,61, 8). Therefore itcan have the connotation of foreign cor barbaric (Dines, Ames, p.G1). I have chosen the term “designated” rather than “appoinced” or “chosen,” because the context of 5 is negative. 2 can refer to the source of menstrunus flow oF the flow of Mood afterWE, Glenny / Ves Testamensuom 57 (2007) 524-547 543, the Egyptians, Philistines, and Syrians? He would have to understand that the word "1P, however he read it, was 2 reference to the geographical source of the Syrians. Third, the face that the translators took as much liberty as they did in translating the four occurrences of "YP should give us pause in ruling out the possibility that the translators did not know this word. And finally, there is evidence of anti-Syrian polemic elsewhere in LXX-Amos.” Therefore, I would suggest that the cranslacor took liberty to manipulate the text in Amos ix 7, pethaps because he did not know the precise meaning of the word, “)p. How- exer, even if he knew the meaning of this rare word. which he translated differently in i 5, he saw this as an opportunity 0 include more polemic against Syria, and he took advantage of the opportunity. Gelston’s first example from i 1 is difficult. ‘The Hebrew term 73, meaning “sheep-breeder” occurs only one other time in MT (1 Ki iii 4). Nor knowing the word, the translator transliterated the plural noun, but he changed the daleth 10 a rob, resulting in Naccatim, Furthermore, it seems the translator took che word asa place name, referring to a place in or near Thecoue (Tekoa), Amos’ hometown. ‘Thus the verse reads “The words of Amos, which came (to him) in Naccarim out of Thecoue.” Itis possible that the translator misread the daleth as a resh, as Gelston suggests, bur in light of the translator's tech- nique described in this article and the fact that he also changes the third sin- gular copula in this clause to a third plural, and in the next clause he changes Israel to Jerusalem, it is also very possible chat he manipulated the radi make sense out of an unknown word. ‘Theological Exegesis” ‘Three of the misreadings Gelston suggests in Amos could be theologically motivated changes in che Vorlage. This is not to say that theological factors played no part in previous examples; however, in the three examples in this section theological considerations may have been the main influence on the changes the translator made in his Vorlage. In Amos vi 1, Gelscon’s fourteenth example, the Greck translation has tig 8Eovbevodew, “those who are despising [ser at naught] Zion,” for the MTs % Dines. Amos. p. 310, Seei 4 5. >» By heological exegesis T mean “any theological element added to the source cext by the wans- lation” (Tox, “Theologically Motivated Exegesis.” p. 259),544 W. E, Glonny / Verus Testamentum 97 (2007) 524-547 DPBNUT, “those at ease in Zion.” Gelston’s solution is that the translaror mis- read the two nuns in the Hebrew for a teth. If that is the case, the translator also omitted the prepositional prefix before Zion (beth), and made Zion a direct object of the verb, which Gelston does not mention, Muraoka calls this Sepraugint translation a free rendering of the Hebrew.” Although the wide range of words used to translate (80 (10x in MT) could indicate that the translator did nor properly understand its meaning, Satterthwaite argues that a close examination of the renderings of the passages in which it occurs s gests that the translators do capture its meaning in its different contexts.” Arietti disagrees with Satcerthwaite and suggests the translator did not know the meaning of the Hebrew verb.” Even if Satterthwaite is right and JX is not an obscure word that would generate a free translation, of which the ren- dering tots &Eov8evoSau in vi 1 isan example, the translation carries a “star- ing ideological payload.”? ‘There are at least two other possible explanations of the translation. It is possible that tig éovevodoty is an inner Greek ertor for an original reading of toig edAqvodew, “those who do well [or thrive]. In fact, in Ps cxxii [cxxiii] 41280 is rendered by toic edfhvodcw. However, it is also possible that Ps cxaii [cxxiii] 4 influenced LXX-Amos vi 1 in quitea different way. The verse reads, “Our soul has had its fill of the mockery of those who are at ease (CRNTT), the contempt of the arrogant (D877 1137).” Here DWNT is closely tied with a reviling word (113), and the attitude of “those who are at ease” is one of “contempr” or “scorn.” It is possible that Ps cxxii [exaiii] 4 facilitated the translator's understanding of “those who are at ease in Zion” (782 DINU) invi | so thathe rendered it “those who are despising Zion” (toic &ov€evoiiaw Zuwy), Satterthwaite concludes, Ifcorrect, this would suggest that the translator was keen to introduce the idea of hostility 0 Zion into his rendering of Am, 6:1: that is, keen to depict those ® Muraoka, A Grek English Lexicon of the Septuagint, p.200, 9 Sauerthwaite, “The Tianslators” p. 23. Johnson, Ames, p. 34, notes that the verb was “unknown to the Greek translato:” in Zech i 15; Saterthwait, p. 2, agrees that this verse may bean exception to his proposal conceming this ver * Arieti, Ams, p. 89. 7 Sueterthwaite, “The Translaos.” p. 24. * The compound form &evfnvéo does not occur anywhere else in Greek; see Dines, Amos, 1-178. Aquila has form of e¢Bnvée in vi 1, according eo the SyroFexaplar ” See Dines. Amos, p. 179. Sarterthwaite, “The Transiatrs,” p. 24, notes that eovdevoo, #EpvBevdn.and EnvBevsar; are used to rranshate the Hebrew roots 712 and 1WCE. Glenny Vetus Tstamentum 57 (2007) 324-547 345 against whom the biblical woe is uttered in terms that would suggest the Samari- tans of his own day. Ps, 123 [122 LAX]; 4, in fact might naturally have sprung 10 mind in this connection, for that Psalm, like many of the Songs of Ascents, describes the hostility directed against post-exilic Zion by those round about, that is, a hostility analogous to that ofthe Samaritans.”® ‘The Septuagint differs greatly from the MT in Amos iv 12-13, the context of example eleven. (See the discussion of example 12 above under Homonyss and Homographs.) The MT describes Yahweh in the third person as “the one who forms the mountains and creates the wind,” while the Septuagint changes to the first person so that the LORD says, “I am the one establishing the thun- der and creating the wind.” Gelscon suggests that the translator misread (“mountains”) as O97(7) ("the thunder”), confusing the yed for an ‘ayin. Gelston’s suggestion is possible here, although it requires the confusion of two Hebrew letters and the addition of the definite article, which has nothing cor- responding to it in the Greek translation. However, there are other possible influences here that also should be considered. First, che beginning of the long, Septuagint addition in Hosea xiii 4, “establishing the heaven and creating the earth," uses the exact same two participle forms found in LXX-Amos iv 13, “catablishing the thunder and creating the wind.” Furthermore, both of these passages contain direct speech by God, addressed to idolatrous Israel, contrast ing God with idols and false gods (Hosea xii -iv; Amos iv 1-13). ‘The context in Hosea makes direct reference to Baal, and che change in Amos from God establishing the “mountains” to him establishing the ‘thunder” may be anti- Baal polemic, since Baal was also known as Hadad (“thunderer”). ‘The Old Testament writers often show that Yahweh and not Baal is the God of cre- ation, and chunder and lightning are his weapons, not the weapons of Baal (Ps Ixxvii [Lexvi LXX] 18; xviii [xvii LXX] 13-15). Thus, it is very possible that among the other changes the translator made to the Hebrew text in Amos iv 13 he was influenced by passages like Hosea xiii 4 to introduce anti-Baal polemic. Ifso, it would be evidence of a single translator of the Greek MP. Gelston’s last example (twenty-three) addresses the well-known difference between the MT and Septuagint in Amos ix 12. The MT reading, “that they may possess the remnant of Edom” (2178 P™"SUT WI" wed), is changed by the translator to “that the remnant of men may seek (me)” (Sno éxtnrhooow oi nordéo.not stv divOpdinoy). Gelston suggests that the translator confused the second yod in 127 (“possess”) for a dalech and read 277 (“seek”). He adds Saterthwaite, “Ihe Transatons,”p. 24546 WE, Glenny Ves Tesmentune 57 (2007) 524-547 the other main change, reading “Edom” as “men,” is “essentially a matter of vocalization, and it may very well be the case that the vocalic wav [in E78) was nor yer present in the Vorlage of the LXX."” Furthermore, he proposes that the difference in the syntax of the clause in the Septuagint, changing the “remnant” from the direct object as itis in the MT to the subject, may be because the particle 8, marking the direct object in the MT, ‘wasa secondary refinement not yct present in the Vorlage of the LXX,” or it was ignored by the translator, who could not make sense of it in light of the way he read the verb.** The only other option Gelston considers for explaining the changes in this verse is the possibility that the Septuagint represents the original rext of the passage, which he rejects, favoring the idea that “the LXX rendering arose ‘ally through the accidental misreading of a single Hebrew letcer.”* In this example Gelston seems to base 100 much on the misreading of one letter. There are several other possible explanations of the differences between the MT and the Septuagint. MeLay lists chree possible explanations: (1) the translator may have read it the way he did “to create a theological rendering;” (2) he may have “misread the verb and Edom and rendered the text in a way that made sense 10 him;” or (3) a mediating posision is chat he did nor com- pletely understand the text, and he “assumed that the scribe who had copied the Hebrew text had made an error.” Therefore he introduced change to make sense of the passage. Dines suggests that the translator may have been influenced by other texts, especially Zech xiv 2, 9, 16, which contains the phrase xatéAotot tév évOpénaw, also found in Amos ix 12. FE. F. Bruce uses Amos ix 12 as an example of prophetic interpretation in the Septuagint. He writes, “In turning the prophetical books from Hebrew into Greek, the Septuagine translators were quite ready to conform the wording ¢o their own religious outlook or otherwise to adapt it co an interpretation which was accepted in the circles to which they belonged.”** He claims that Amos ix 1 1ff 9 Gelston, “Hebrew Misreadings,”p. 498 % Geiston, “Hebrew Misreadings,” p. 498. It is worth noting that he feels che translator can ignore things in the texe when ie supports his theory. © Geiston, “Hebrew Misreadings,”p. 499. ©) RT. MeL ay, The Ur ofthe Sepruagin: in New Testament Rewarch (Grand Rapid, 2003), p. 2 © Dimes, Amos p. 302; shel suggests other ents, like Isa ix 16-25, may have influenced the translator. Palmer, Zechariah, pp. 1358 argues thae Ia xe 16-25 was known by the translator of Zechatiah, from the way he venders viii 21. EE Bruce, “Prophetic Interpretation in the Septuagin.” BIOSCS 12 (1979), p. 17. Bruce allows for revocalization and misceadling, as Gelston suggests, but he argues that “the ual effet is more than the sum of these extual variants.”WE. Glenny/ Vetus Testamentum 57 (2007) 524-547 347 is one of the best known examples of this. As these others suggest, there is more going on in the Septuagint cect of Amos ix 12 than the misreading of an obscure letter; it appears that several factors may have influenced the cranslacor in this passage. Conclusion I is impossible to be absolutely cervain about the cause of differences berween the MT and the LXX. 1 agree with Gelston that the cwenty-three examples of variation between the MT and LXX in his article arc likely the result of changes made during the process of cranslation from Hebrew to Greek. However, I disagree with his proposed reason for the changes. | propose that the differences between the MT and the LXX in the twenty-three examples Gelston gives from Amos are not “misreadings” of the Hebrew text by the translator that were caused by indistinct writing or other damage to the text in the Verlag. Instead I propose that his examples are better explained as relatively free ren- derings of the Vorlage, found in what is for the most part a literal translation of Amos, Most of these so-called “misreading:” can best be explained as the result of the translator's attempt to make sense of words or phrases in the Var- lage that he did not understand, but some are double translations, adequate bucimprecise translations, or theologically motivated translations. In many of the examples cited by Gelston rare or difficult Hebrew words in the context of the problem offer a ready explanation of the difference berween the MT and LXX, and there is no need to conjecture about indistinct writing or a blot in the Varlage. Finally, ic is worth noting that my conclusions are consistent with the findings of Dines in her study of LXX-Amos," Palmer in his study of LXX- Zechariah," and Muraoka in his study of LXX-ME® This emerging consis- tency concerning the techniques the translator used to deal with the obscure parts of the text of MP suggests there was one translator of that corpus, a theory which needs to be tested more broadly in the remaining books. See Dines, Aman p. £99. % Palimes, Zechariah pp. 65-67, 171-177. " Muraoka, "Hebrew Hapax Legomena,” p. 208.