Search Results

Abstract

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 Septuagint of Amos,” VT (2002), pp. 493-500. Gelston gives twenty-three examples of differences between the MT and LXX of Amos that he argues should be explained by indistinct writing or damage to the Hebrew Vorlage. It is more probable that most of the twenty-three examples of differences between the MT and LXX of Amos that Gelston surveys are the result of the translator's attempt to make sense of words or phrases in the Vorlage that he did not understand. In many of the examples cited by Gelston rare or difficult words in the context in the Vorlage offer a ready explanation of the difference. Some of the differences are probably the result of double translations, adequate but imprecise translations, or theologically motivated translations.

In: Vetus Testamentum
In: Micah
In: Micah
In: Micah
In: Micah
In: Micah
In: Micah
In: Hosea
In: Hosea