LXX error of the Hebrew original: Amos 4:13

koot van wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD)

Kyungpook National University

Sangju Campus

South Korea

conjoint lecturer of Avondale College

10 July 2010

There was a time when Christians argued that the LXX is the best Bible since it was the Bible of Jesus. Julius Wellhausen (1880) mistakenly operated with the same axioms. Until we realized through proper textual analytical studies (misnamed as textual criticism) that the LXX is actually a Christian byzantine text and that except for some fragments from the time of Origen, only those that were copied in the days of Constantine "with high speed" survived and is known to be our big uncials, codices Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus.

These uncials are full of problems when one compares them with each other. Why?

Slips. Slips of the tongue, ear, hand, eye, memory. It is that simple. When you copy something at high speed, and you have to copy it fifty times because the emperor wants it to be bound in 50 copies made in haste, then that is what you get: errors.

A classical example of such an error is the one in LXXAmos 4:13. It is different than the MTAmos 4:13. What we are saying here is that the Greek of this text differs from the Hebrew of this text. Constantine ordered these Greek uncials to be copied in 350 CE and they are all dating to the end of the fourth century or beginning of the fifth. Anyone who has worked with these three uncials will know that they are a can of worms. Spelling errors, syntax differences, recasting, paraphrasing, additions, omissions, wrong choice of Greek word for some Hebrew words etc. Does this mean that Jesus, Paul, John and others used an errorful Greek text as their Bible. Is the gospel designed on a wrongful Bible? Far be it.

Byzantine Christian LXX is more than 500 years from the original production of the LXX at Alexandria. When the rabbis came from Jerusalem to assist in the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, you can be sure that they did a very good work. The translation was of the highest standard that you can imagine: as literal as possible, the correct Greek equivalents, careful syntax and the more. What happened? We are told by M. Frazer in his research Ptolemaic Alexandria, especially the volume on the Notes, that the library of Alexandria had many problems around the days of Antiochus Epiphanes (164 BCE) and later. Homeric copies experienced problems with additions, omissions, reworkings, in such a way that when someone was asked at Pella where they can get a good copy of Homer's Iliad, the person answered, "As long as it is not one of these recent ones". You can be sure that if the librarians were a problem at Alexandria, their students were also and the end-products as well. Copying thus the LXX for distribution, for whatever reason in these days of Antiochus Epiphanes would result in a simulated situation: "as long as it is not one of these recent editions". The theory that two LXX forms started to exist from the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, is now attractive. What supports this idea even more, is the fact that the Greek fragments from Cave Four at Qumran, does not support the Byzantine Christian LXX that we have allocated in modernity, and in the Middle Ages, as the so-called "original Septuagint". 4QLXXNum and 4QLXXLev and other texts align more with the Hebrew Masoretic text than with the Brooke-Macleans, Ralphs, or Göttingen edition of the Septuagint of late. This is significant and very important. It means that in Jesus days, there was an errorful LXX and a more literal one. Jesus, Paul and John used the more literal one and sometimes paraphrased it from memory or cite it from memory. The errorful copy was not used in the New Testament. When we see surprising renderings in the New Testament Greek LXX citation, it is because we do not understand the Hebrew lexicography properly. Maybe we have been paying too much attention to 7th century Arabic as a guide to meanings of roots rather than ancient languages like Ugarit, Akkadian, Middle Egyptian, Aramaic, Hittite, Hurrian, Sumerian, Amorite and the like.

Now we are ready to look at Amos 4:13 in the Greek of Constantine's hasty copies: Alexandrinus, Vaticanus and the same.

Masoretic text of Amos 4:13

For behold, He forms mountains and creates the breath, and declares to man what his speech/thoughts is.

[Byzantine hasty copy by Constantine] LXX of Amos 4:13

and declares to man his Christ [ton Xriston autou].

Origin of the error

It is not enough to say that it is a Christian interpolation in the book of Amos. Yes, our Septuagint survived through the hands of Christians as Harry Orlinsky pointed out in the 1950's, but there was an error in the translation here. We must ask ourselves, how this error originated.

Of the five slips we suggest that it is a combination of three errors: slip of the hand, slip of the eye and slip of the ear.

In a copy factory in Rome, the scribe had before him a Hebrew original that was copied so fast in with such illegible handwriting, and in continuous letters, that the person missed the He between the Mem and the Shin. For that matter, it could have been an errorful Hebrew copy with the He omitted when the translator worked with it, or it could have been that it was there but the handwriting was so bad that the reader to the copyist, did not see it and read mashiho "ton Xriston auto". A slip of the hand created or enhanced a slip of the eye resulting in a slip of the ear, mashiho which caused the Greek translator to translate ton Xriston auto. Even if one remove the slip of the hand and the slip of the eye of the Hebrew reader, the phonics of mhsho and msho is not going to differ that much. It will be difficult for a listener to mark the difference if he is to translate the Hebrew from what he did not see but only heard. So, whether the other two slips were also present here, one thing is for sure. a slip of the ear cannot be denied.

Dictation a cause to the slip of the ear

Slips of the ear is known to occur in a dictation situation. Zinni Bond is a professor in modern linguistics who is working with Slips of the ear. What happened then in the original situation in 350 CE in Constantine's Copy Factory, is that a scribe was sitting with a Hebrew manuscript and reading the Hebrew, probably a Jewish person. A Christian scribe familiar with Hebrew listened and then translated what he heard in Greek and wrote it down. They may have even had a third scribe who's task it was to only write the Greek down. If they have two rooms with a door and the translator scribe sits in the door, the Hebrew reader in the room A and the copyist in room B, then the scribes in room A and B cannot hear each other and it would be easier for the translating Greek scribe to copy what he heard from the door sitter translator. This is just speculation and we do not know if this is the method that they were using. The scribe at the door would hear Messiah when the actual original Hebrew read just like today, mahshio = what His thought/speech is".

Theological design or slip?

This is a good question. Did the errorful LXX intentionally trying to bring Jesus Christ into Amos 4:13 by putting in ton Xriston autou = and his Christ, or is there another explanation? My professor at Stellenbosch University, Johann Cook was of the opinion that this is an illustration of Christian additions. He is not the only one. For this researcher, it appears that the slip of the ear is a better explanation of the origin of the error so that it was not intentional and thus, no Theological drive behind this particular area of the translation.

Meaning of the text

The Hebrew means that God reveals Himself to man. God has revealed to man what His thought is. His speech He has made known to man. Prophecy is one way in which God is foretelling what is going to happen in every century, even in our days. The Middle Age Commentator, Rabbi Rashi came to this verse and thought that it means "man's speech". He translated "what his speech is". He then concluded that "all the deeds are related in detail before him at the time of his death". This is not correct. The context of the verse has God in mind and how this Creator is great and all the actions He does. One of the actions is that He declares Himself to man and that is what we call revelation. The Middle Age rabbi Redak explained that "He will tell you your deeds through His prophet". It is not exactly correct since the information that we get from God is about Himself. He reveals Himself to us. This is what the verse is saying but both Rashi and Redak wants to make it that God reveal aspects of man to man. The Middle Age Rabbi Kara (contemporary of Rashi) was also on a spin here. He explained it to mean "The Holy One, blessed be He, declares to man what his speech and his deeds are, so that he repent". It is correct, like all the rabbis is correct as far as the whole Bible is concerned, but for this verse, Amos 4:13, none of them is correct.