LXX Translation Research Articles

Haplography in the Hebrew Vorlage of LXX Jeremiah

Opinions of nineteenth century scholars assessing the text of Jeremiah, where the LXX is one-eighth shorter than MT, were divided. Movers (1837) favored the shorter LXX text, while Graf (1862) favored the longer MT, believing that LXX Jeremiah had been abridged and corrupted by its translator. Since Duhm (1901) the shorter text of Jeremiah has been given consistent preference, and the MT seen as an expansionist text. The discovery of a fragment of the short Hebrew text of Jeremiah at Qumran (4QJer b ) led Janzen (1963) and others to conclude that the LXX translator did not abridge his Vorlage , but translated a Hebrew text of comparable length, localized in Egypt where the translation was made. While Janzen did not believe that shorter is always better, he nevertheless supported the consensus view that MT is by and large an expansionist text. The present article challenges this view, arguing that the LXX translated from a seriously flawed Hebrew text of Jeremiah, one containing more than 300 arguable cases of haplography, accounting for 64% of its word loss. The article also presents evidence to show that Biblia Hebraica failed to cite many LXX omissions, and was unjustly biased in favor of the shorter LXX readings. The longer MT of Jeremiah is far and away the better text, comparable to LXX Samuel, which is also longer and better. What we have then in Jeremiah is not so much proto-MT expansion by busy scribes in Babylon, but proto LXX loss by careless and inattentive scribes in Egypt.

SOME HEBREW MISREADINGS IN THE SEPTUAGINT OF AMOS

AbstractOne of the many different possible reasons for variations between the MT and the LXX is misreading of the Hebrew text by the LXX translator. Such misreading often extends to only one or two letters, and provides a ready explanation for renderings otherwise difficult to understand. There is an unusual concentration of such apparent misreadings in the LXX of Amos, 23 particular cases being briefly examined and classified in this communication. Three cases are of more than usual interest and are examined in greater detail. The cumulative effect of the occurence of a number of probable cases of misreading in a comparatively short text, where the translation of the LXX is generally accurate, is most probably to be explained by indistinct writing or damage to the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX translator.

Towards the Ur-Text of Esther

This article attempts to discover the original version of the book of Esther. There are three versions of Esther extant: the Hebrew MT, the Greek LXX translation of the MT, and a second Greek text (the so-called A-text). The LXX is a translation of the MT except for some additions to it. The A-text is a translation of a Hebrew text different from the MT. Scholars argue that the A-text witnesses to the original story of Esther because (1) the A-text is shorter, and (2) the ending of the A-text is presumed to be the ‘perfect ending’ of the story. This ending includes neither the slaying of those trying to kill the Jews nor the holiday of Purim. This paper argues these two elements are part of the original story and should not be excised from it.

The Asterisked Materials in the Greek Job (review)

The Asterisked Materials in the Greek Job (review)

Habacuque 2.4b e a Doutrina da Justificação Pela Fé

Hb 2:4b is analyzed in the perspective of textual criticism and structural analysis. The author distinguishes between the reinterpretation by the LXX translation, by the Qumran’s community and by the Apostle Paul, and points out the contribution of the text for the formulation of the doctrine of justification by faith.