Chapter 9

The Textual Value of the Septuagint Version of the

Minor Prophets

Emanuel Tov

1 The Text-Critical Status of the Books of the Minor Prophets*

When dealing with textual criticism, we ought to remember that the main
task of that discipline is to serve as an auxiliary discipline to the exegesis of
Hebrew Scripture. Primary and secondary readings are investigated, but in this
study we are focusing on primary readings. Certain Scripture books cannot be
understood well without referring to ancient textual sources. This analysis in-
volves the taking of a position with regard to the number of textual branches
in a given Scripture book. Sometimes we are faced with a single textual branch
when there are but few differences between the MT, the LXX, and the Judean
Desert texts. This pertains, for example, to the books of Judges, Job, Ruth,
Qohelet, and Lamentations.1 On the other hand, in the Torah, we are faced
with 10–12 different branches,2 while in Samuel we witness three textual tradi-
tions. However, in most books, we meet two textual traditions, MT and the
Vorlage of the LXX.
There is no easy answer to the question regarding the situation in the Minor
Prophets since the MP is not a single book but rather a collection of books
that were written at different times. Nevertheless, I believe that all these books
reflect the same textual situation. The MT of a few books is more difficult than
that of most other books and the LXX of some books seemingly provides more
variants than in other books. In my view, in most cases in the MP the textual
witnesses reflect a single tradition, in which the MT and the LXX go hand in

* The author is grateful for permission to use the HUBP database of the forthcoming edition of the
Minor Prophets from which he culled a few helpful references. Thanks are due to the director of
the HUBP and the editor of that volume, Michael Segal, for this permission and to David Knoll for
practical help.
1  One could also say that these books had a rather stable transmission, since we are not aware
of many readings that deviate from MT. However, there could have been textual develop-
ments prior to the textual evidence known to us.
2  See my study “The Development of the Text of the Torah in Two Major Text Blocks,” Text 26
(2016): 1–27. http://www.hum.huji.ac.il/units.php?cat=5020andincat=4972.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004407657_010

129-148_Dogniez_09-Tov.indd 129 25 Apr 2019 19:51:35

 130 Tov

hand. Before turning to our main point, we make a few generalized statements
about the textual situation in the Minor Prophets.
1. The ancient Hebrew material from the Judean Desert is valuable but, as a
rule, it is not of major importance for identifying presumably original readings.
The Murabba‛at scroll is proto-Masoretic, and therefore the number of its di-
vergences from MT is very small. The Qumran scrolls contain mainly second-
ary readings.3 However, there are several exceptions, for example:4
Hab 1:17 MT ‫“( ַה ַעל ֵכּן יָ ִריק ֶח ְרמֹו וְ ָת ִמיד ַל ֲהר ֹג גֹּויִ ם לֹא יַ ְחמֹול‬Shall he then
keep emptying his trawl, and slaying nations without pity?”).5 The preced-
ing verses contain fishing imagery, making ‫“( ֶח ְרמֹו‬net”) of MT a possible
reading. However, the parallel stich speaks about killing, and therefore ‫חרבו‬
(1QpHab 6:8–12) with a beth/mem interchange would also be possible. The
phrase ‫ הריק חרב‬indeed occurs in Exod 15:9 and Ezek 5:12 (“to bare, un-
sheathe the sword”). Therefore, the reading of the pesher (and independently,
8ḤevXIIgr XVII.18 μάχαιραν αὐτοῦ) may well be original.6
2. MT is a stable witness in the Minor Prophets, foreshadowed by the proto-
Masoretic scroll from Murabba‛at. MT is also closely followed by the Targum
and Vulgate, and slightly less so in the Peshitta.
3. Our main interest is in the LXX. In order to evaluate the Greek Minor
Prophets, we first have to express an opinion on their unity. That unity was

3  I agree with the view expressed by Armin Lange, Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer,
I: Die Handschriften biblischer Bücher von Qumran und den anderen Fundorten (Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 351 who notes that the main differences are in the Hebrew article, num-
ber, and gender. Accordingly, the textual picture of the Minor Prophets scrolls differs basi-
cally from that of the Jeremiah and Ezekiel scrolls, says Armin Lange. Also Florentino García
Martínez, “The Text of the XII Prophets at Qumran,” OTE 17 (2004): 103–19 noted that many of
the variants are exegetical. Barry Alan Jones, The Formation of the Book of the Twelve: A Study
in Text and Canon (SBLDS 149; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 125–28 suggests that the MT and
LXX derive from the same archetype since they differ but little from each other. To the degree
that they differ from each other, the Vorlage of the LXX often includes content exegesis. See
further the survey of George J. Brooke, “The Twelve Minor Prophets and the Dead Sea Scrolls,”
in Congress Volume Leiden 2004 (ed. André Lemaire; VTSup 109; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 19–43.
4  See the analysis by García Martínez, “The Text,” 113.
5  Unless mentioned otherwise, in this study all translations from MT are quoted from,‫תנ״ך‬
JPS Hebrew-English Tanach, The Traditional Hebrew Text and the New JPS Translation (2nd ed.;
Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1999). All translations from the LXX are quoted from
A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally
Included Under That Title (ed. Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright; Oxford: Clarendon,
2007).
6  R EB goes one step further as it includes the variant in the translation itself (“Are they to draw
the sword every day to slaughter the nations pitilessly?”).

129-148_Dogniez_09-Tov.indd 130 25 Apr 2019 19:51:35

 Textual Value of the Septuagint Version of the Minor Prophets 131

upheld by Ziegler in an older study7 and by Muraoka and others in recent ones.8
I likewise note in this study that some of the peculiar translation equivalents of
the Minor Prophets recur in different books, a phenomenon that strengthens
the assumption that one translator rendered all of the books of the MP.9 The
unity of the Greek Minor Prophets allows us to consider the evidence from the
individual books as one unit.

2 The Use of the Septuagint of the Minor Prophets in Textual

Criticism

Beyond MT, the LXX is the major source that is used consistently in the textual
criticism of the MP. The number of variants reflected by the LXX differs from
book to book. However, many of these variants are “pseudo-variants,” that is,
they look like Hebrew variants but they often arose in the mind of a transla-
tor who manipulated the letters in his Vorlage when experiencing lexical or
exegetical problems.10 In this study, I focus on this type of exegesis, especially
on those cases that are on the boundary between exegesis and the assumption
of variant readings.
Already in 1887, one of the so-called “stellingen” (hypotheses) that were
attached to the dissertation of Schuurmans Stekhoven, Dodekapropheton de-
clared that “the importance of the LXX for the criticism of the Masoretic Text

7   Joseph Ziegler, Die Einheit der LXX zum Zwölfprophetenbuch, Beilage zum Vorlesungsver-
zeichnis der Staatl. Akademie zu Braunsberg (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1934),
1–16. The same view had been expressed already by Jacobus Z. Schuurmans Stekhoven, De
alexandrijnse vertaling van het Dodekapropheton (Leiden: Brill, 1887), 126.
8   Takamitsu Muraoka, “In Defense of the Unity of the Minor Prophets,” Annual of the
Japanese Biblical Institute 15 (1989): 25–36; idem, “L’unité des Douze Prophètes en grec,” in
Jan Joosten et al., Les Douze Prophètes. Osée (La Bible d’Alexandrie 23.1; Paris: Cerf, 2002),
ix–xxi; Jones, Formation, 88–90. For an updated summary, see W. Edward Glenny, “9.3
Septuagint,” in Textual History of the Bible, The Hebrew Bible, Vol. 1B, Pentateuch, Former
and Latter Prophets (ed. Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov; Leiden: Brill, 2017), 614–22; esp.
615–16. On the other hand, on the basis of a limited number of examples, C. Robert
Harrison, “The Unity of the Minor Prophets in the LXX: A Reexamination of the Question,”
BIOSCS 21 (1988): 55–72 thinks in terms of different translators of the Minor Prophets.
9   For example, see the different renderings of ‫ ַא ְרמֹון‬as discussed below, pp. 8–9. Note the
mistranslation of ‫ ִמיָּ ם‬as ‫ ַמיִ ם‬in Amos 8:12, Nah 3:8, and Mic 7:12. In both Amos 1:12 and Mic
2:12, the place name Bozrah was not recognized by the LXX. In Amos 1:14, Hos 8:7, and Nah 1:3,
‫סוּפה‬
ָ is not recognized and is rendered from ‫סֹוף‬.
10  The term was suggested by myself in Emanuel Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint
in Biblical Research: Completely Revised and Expanded (3rd edition; Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 2015), 178–87.

129-148_Dogniez_09-Tov.indd 131 25 Apr 2019 19:51:36

 132 Tov

of the Dodekapropheton is very slight”.11 According to that scholar, the differ-

ences between MT and the LXX often have to be ascribed to the translator’s
misunderstanding of the Hebrew. Several additional scholars independently
made the same claim.12 Indeed, the Hebrew of these books is often difficult,
but Schuurmans Stekhoven provided many examples of the translator’s faulty
knowledge of the Hebrew language also in places where it is not difficult.13
In order to know whether a deviation from MT in the LXX reflects exegesis
or a variant, we rely on our subjective judgment. For example,

Jonah 1:9 ‫ֹלהי ַה ָשּׁ ַמיִ ם ֲאנִ י יָ ֵרא‬

ֵ ‫יהם ִע ְב ִרי אָנ ִֹכי וְ ֶאת־יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ =( וַ יּ‬T S V) – “I am
ֶ ‫אמר ֲא ֵל‬
a Hebrew,” he replied. “I worship the Lord, the God of Heaven.”
LXX καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς Δοῦλος κυρίου ἐγώ εἰμι καὶ τὸν κύριον θεὸν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐγὼ
σέβομαι – And he said to them, “I am a slave of the Lord, and I worship the Lord,
God of the sky.”

A probably original ‫ עברי‬was understood as ‫ עבד י׳‬by the LXX or its Vorlage,
that is ‫ עבד‬together with the abbreviated Tetragrammaton.14 Jonah’s responses
in MT answer appropriately the questions concerning his origin, whereas the
reply in the LXX does not answer these questions. Moreover, in the LXX, Jonah
refers twice to the worship of God. Beyond the differences in the understand-
ing of the yod as an abbreviation, the two texts also differ in their reading of the

11  Stellingen II: “Hare ⟨i.e. the LXX’s⟩ beteekenis voor de kritiek van den massoretischen
tekst van het dodekapropheton is uiterst gering.” Also Cécile Dogniez suggested that the
Vorlage of the Greek translation is usually identical to MT. See Cécile Dogniez, “Volonté
et motif: les intentions du traducteur des Douze Petits Prophètes,” in Die Septuaginta –
Orte und Intentionen. 5. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch
(LXX.D), Wuppertal 24.–27. Juli 2014 (ed. Siegfried Kreuzer, Martin Meiser and Marcus
Sigismund; WUNT 361; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 629–44; esp. 637.
12  Klaas Spronk, Nahum (HCOT; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1997), 3: “The Greek translation of
the LXX differs in many places from the MT, but as a rule this can be explained as due to
misunderstanding or very free rendition of the text”; Anthony Gelston, “Some Difficulties
Encountered by the Ancient Translators,” in Sofêr Mahîr: Essays in Honour of Adrian
Schenker Offered by Editors of Biblia Hebraica Quinta (VTSup 110; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 47–
58; W. Edward Glenny, Finding Meaning in the Text: Translation Technique and Theology in
the Septuagint of Amos (VTSup 126; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 109–46; James Karol Palmer, “‘Not
Made with Tracing Paper’. Studies in the Septuagint of Zechariah” (PhD diss.; Cambridge
University, 2004), 176: “More frequently than not, the divergencies between MT and LXX
are differences of understanding rather than text.”
13  Schuurmans Stekhoven, Dodekapropheton, 100–16.
14  For additional examples of abbreviations and literature, see my Textual Criticism of the
Hebrew Bible (3rd ed. revised and expanded; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 238.

129-148_Dogniez_09-Tov.indd 132 25 Apr 2019 19:51:36

 Textual Value of the Septuagint Version of the Minor Prophets 133

letters ‫ר‬/‫ד‬.15 It is hard to know why the translator made this major mistake, but
probably he was influenced by the next phrase, “I worship the Lord, the God of
Heaven.” The fact that ‫ עברי‬occurs relatively rarely in the Bible may also have
been influential.16
If this analysis is correct, the translator’s decision in Jonah does not show a
sound understanding of the context, and we may expect more renderings of
this kind from him.
In most books of the Minor Prophets, the textual tradition is rather unified
with a limited number of textual differences between MT and LXX, the two
major witnesses in the Minor Prophets. There are more textual complications
in Hosea, Micah, and Habakkuk 3 than in the other books.
Most books of the Minor Prophets are described as displaying few signifi-
cant differences between the textual witnesses or, with a different formula-
tion, as books in which MT reflects the original text rather well: Joel, Amos,
Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. There are of
course exceptions within these books, such as words or verses in which MT
reflects a secondary text, for example, in several verses in Haggai.17 In Nahum,
the situation is more complex.18
The Hebrew text of the following three books creates special problems,
but their Vorlagen probably did not differ more from MT than those of the
other books.
Hosea: Traditionally, Hosea has been regarded as having one of the most
corrupt texts in the Hebrew Bible, frequently subjected to emendation.19 More
recent scholarship, however, has claimed that this book should not be read as

15  On the other hand, N. Leiter believes that the translation of the LXX is exegetical: “Jonah:
Servant of the Lord,” in The Bible in the Light of Its Interpreters, Sarah Kamin Memorial
Volume (ed. Sara Japhet; Heb.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1994), 58–72.
16  22× in the Torah, 8× in 1 Samuel, 3× in Jeremiah, and once in Chronicles.
17  2:9, 14, 21, 22.
18  Herman Gunkel, “Nahum 1,” ZAW 13 (1893): 223–44; esp. 240–41 expressed himself very
eloquently regarding the many mistakes in the assumed acrostychon in chapter 1 and the
beginning of chapter 2 that deserve to be corrected, and he and others suggested many
emendations. See especially Klaus Seybold, “Vormasoretische Randnotizen in Nahum 1,”
ZAW 101 (1989): 71–85 and the many emendations in BHS. According to Heinz-Josef Fabry,
Nahum (HThKAT; Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2006), 74–81, the text is often corrupt.
On the other hand, Spronk, Nahum, 3, 23–26 pointed out that these chapters do not con-
tain an acrostychon and that therefore relatively few details in MT need be corrected.
Likewise, Duane L. Christensen, Nahum (AB; New Haven/London: Yale University Press,
2009), 64 notes the “relatively little evidence of textual corruption” in that book.
19  See William Rainey Harper, Amos and Hosea (ICC; Edinburgh: Clark, 1905), clxxiii (“one of
the most corrupt in the O.T.”).

129-148_Dogniez_09-Tov.indd 133 25 Apr 2019 19:51:36

 134 Tov

classical Hebrew poetry, but as the language of the northern kingdom.20 That
language was as difficult for the Greek translator as it is for us today,21 and pos-
sibly the Vorlage of the LXX did not differ much from MT.22
Micah: Smith23 and Hillers24 regard the text of the LXX to be superior to
that of MT and thus find the Greek invaluable as a source for correcting MT, as
reflected at a later stage in the extensive apparatus in BHQ.25 However, the LXX
translator often misunderstands his Hebrew Vorlage, as the discussion below
shows, and therefore its evidence must be taken with a grain of salt.26
Habakkuk 3: In chapters 1–2, this book is no more complex than the other
books, but it is in the “prayer” in chapter 3.27 1QpHab, usually offering a popular
and secondary text, is not very relevant for the analysis of the LXX.28

20  Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Hosea (AB; New York: The Anchor Bible
Doubleday, 1980), 59; Andrew A. Macintosh, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
Hosea (Edinburgh: Clark, 1997), lxxiv-lxxxiii.
21  For that reason, Andersen-Freedman, Hosea, 66–68 suggest that the best we can do is to
follow MT and the scrolls that do not differ much from MT.
22  Macintosh, Hosea, lxxvii: “While the LXX version of Hosea clearly shows considerable
differences from the MT, it cannot be said to indicate a Vorlage which differed often or
substantially from what has come down to us in the MT…. word for word …”
23  John Merlin Powis Smith, Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Obadiah and Joel (ICC;
Edinburgh: Clark, 1911), 5: “The text has come down to us in a bad state of corruption….
Almost half of the errors are in chs. 1 and 2, while chs. 4 and 5 are remarkably free from
them.”
24  Delbert R. Hillers, Micah (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 10: “… conjectural
emendations retain considerable importance…. But in the more corrupt passages of the
book – and Micah is often placed among the worst books in the canon in this respect – so
many conjectures have been proposed that it would be impossible to list them all …”
25  Adrian Schenker, ed., Biblia Hebraica Quinta (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft,
2004–), Part 13: The Twelve Minor Prophets (ed. Anthony Gelston; 2010).
26  A novel approach to this book is reflected in the commentary by Francis I. Andersen and
David Noel Freedman, Micah, Anchor Bible (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000),
3–5. These scholars gave up the idea of reconstructing an original text behind the various
texts, focusing instead on MT, while providing the text of the LXX in a parallel column.
For these scholars, the LXX does not serve as a tool for reconstructing the earliest text of
Micah, but as a witness of its early exegesis. The presentation in parallel columns cer-
tainly is creative and useful, but it avoids the text-critical problems.
27  At the same time, I do not know whether we need to go as far as Ahituv who claimed
that “the text of Habakkuk has not been preserved well”: Shmuel Ahituv in Mordechai
Cogan, Nahum, Shmuel Aḥituv, Habakuk, and idem, Zephaniah (Mikra Leyisra’el, A Bible
Commentary for Israel; Tel Aviv/Jerusalem: Am Oved/Magnes, 2006; Heb.), 11–13; esp. 11.
28  Aḥituv, Habakuk, 11; Timothy Lim, Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline
Letters (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997).

129-148_Dogniez_09-Tov.indd 134 25 Apr 2019 19:51:36

 Textual Value of the Septuagint Version of the Minor Prophets 135

3 Pseudo-Variants in the LXX of the Minor Prophets29

The LXX of the Minor Prophets deviates often from MT, either because of the
translator’s exegesis or because of a deviating Vorlage. The distinction between
these two factors is difficult, and the commentaries, among them the intro-
ductions to the volumes of the Bible d’Alexandrie, are replete with remarks
about them.30
In this study, we try to delve into the heart of the textual procedure. I noted
above that the known Hebrew sources from the Judean Desert do not, as a
rule, contribute in a major way to the textual criticism of the MP. This pertains
also to the Greek text, but the argument for that translation differs from that
for the Hebrew texts. Several scholars found that many or most of the variants
in the Hebrew Qumran texts are secondary, but such a claim will not be made
for the LXX. For the Greek translation, I suggest that very often the deviations
of the LXX from MT that appear to be variants were created by the transla-
tor’s content exegesis or by his exegesis in the wake of experiencing lexical
difficulties. Such a suggestion cannot be proven by hard facts such as statistics,
but it can be made likely by the type of difficulties experienced. These mani-
fest difficulties are the occurrence of (a) rare Hebrew words and (b) exegetical
difficulties, both of which can be demonstrated by objective data. The pro-
cedure that was presumably followed by the translator is this: When he was
facing a difficult word, he often arranged (manipulated) the Hebrew letters
in his mind in order to obtain a word that would fit the context. That recon-
structed word seemingly resembled a variant, but in my view these cases are
mere pseudo-variants.

29  The textual commentary of BHQ by Anthony Gelston (see n. 25) is helpful, as are a number
of textual monographs: Gunnar Magnus Eidsvåg, The Old Greek Translation of Zechariah
(VTSup 170; Leiden: Brill, 2016); Christopher J. Fresh, “9.1 Textual History of the Minor
Prophets,” in Textual History of the Bible, The Hebrew Bible, Vol. 1B, Pentateuch, Former and
Latter Prophets (ed. Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov; Leiden: Brill, 2017), 590–600; Glenny,
Amos; idem, “9.3 Septuagint”; Schuurmans Stekhoven, Dodekapropheton; Gelston, “Some
Difficulties.”
30  These volumes display an increasing attention to the Hebrew text underlying the Greek
translation. The following volumes have appeared to date: Jan Joosten et al., Les Douze
Prophètes. Osée (La Bible d’Alexandrie 23.1; Paris: Cerf, 2002); Marguerite Harl et al., Les
Douze Prophètes. Joël, Abdiou, Jonas, Naoum, Ambakoum, Sophonie (La Bible d’Alexandrie
23.4–9; Paris: Cerf, 1999); Marguerite Harl et al., Les Douze Prophètes. Aggée, Zacharie
(La Bible d’Alexandrie 23.10–11; Paris: Cerf, 2011); Laurence Vianès, Les Douze Prophètes.
Malachie (La Bible d’Alexandrie 23.12; Paris: Cerf, 2011). The remarks in these volumes list
the pluses and minuses of the LXX as well as the qualitative differences without taking a
position with regard to their textual status.

129-148_Dogniez_09-Tov.indd 135 25 Apr 2019 19:51:36

 136 Tov

A translator’s guessing at the meaning of a difficult word played an impor-

tant part in his attempt to understand his Vorlage, not only with regard to the
consonants,31 but also with regard to their reading. Schuurmans Stekhoven32
noted already in 1887 that when faced with different options for understanding
the Hebrew, the translator of the MP always chose the most frequently occur-
ring word, even if that choice made little sense in the context. He provided
thirty examples from the MP for his claim. In 1928, Kaminka suggested that
most interchanges of consonants by the translator of the MP were real, but
that some of them reflect context exegesis.33 Likewise, Gelston stressed the
contextual problems encountered by the translator of the Minor Prophets.34
I now exemplify the procedures followed by the translator of the MP by
the occurrence of (a) rare Hebrew words and (b) exegetical difficulties. These
difficulties were often caused by rare or unusual words, forms, or expressions.
Several of these renderings reflect manipulations of Hebrew consonants that
are classed as pseudo-variants. The examples are chosen mainly from two
books in order to strengthen the argument, the translation of Amos and the
personal names in Micah.

3.1 Rare Hebrew Words

Rare Hebrew words obviously created problems for an ancient translator who
often had no choice but to turn to contextual guesswork or to the manipula-
tion of letters. A case in point is the rare word ‫ ְבּ ֵדי‬, a compound of ‫( ַדּי‬which
suffices), which occurs only three or possibly four times in Scripture. Hence its
meaning may have been unknown to the translators.

Hab 2:13 ‫י־ריק יִ ָעפוּ‬

ִ ‫וּל ֻא ִמּים ְבּ ֵד‬ ֵ ‫ – וְ יִ יגְ עוּ ַע ִמּים ְבּ ֵד‬So that peoples have had to toil
ְ ‫י־אשׁ‬
for the fire, and nations to weary themselves for naught!
LXX καὶ ἐξέλιπον λαοὶ ἱκανοὶ ἐν πυρὶ καὶ ἔθνη πολλὰ ὠλιγοψύχησαν – And enough
peoples have expired in fire, and many nations have become faint-hearted.

31  Emanuel Tov, “Did the Septuagint Translators Always Understand Their Hebrew Text?” in
Emanuel Tov, The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint (VTSup 72;
Leiden: Brill, 1999), 203–18.
32  Schuurmans Stekhoven, Dodekapropheton, 97–98.
33  Armand Kaminka, Studien zur Septuaginta an der Hand der Zwölf Kleinen Prophetenbücher
(Frankfurt a. Main: Kaufmann, 1928), 20–30.
34  Gelston, “Some Difficulties.” However, in another study, he suggested that the manuscript
from which the translation was prepared was particularly difficult to read, resulting in
many letters being written incorrectly. See his study “Some Hebrew Misreadings in the
Septuagint of Amos,” VT 52 (2002): 493–500.

129-148_Dogniez_09-Tov.indd 136 25 Apr 2019 19:51:36

 Textual Value of the Septuagint Version of the Minor Prophets 137

The LXX connected the first ‫ בדי‬wrongly with the preceding word ‫ ;עמים‬the
second occurrence is seemingly reflected as ‫( רבים‬πολλά). Furthermore, ‫ריק‬
is probably not represented in the LXX: ὀλιγοψυχέω may express only ‫יעפו‬, cf.
Judg 8:4 ‫ – עיפים‬LXXA: ὀλιγοψυχοῦντες.
In my view, ‫ רבים‬and the “omission” of ‫ ריק‬should not be considered vari-
ants, even though the retroversion is seemingly reliable.35 They merely reflect
the thought process of the translator.36
A second example is the translation of ‫ארמון‬,37 which occurs some thirty
times in the Bible and is usually translated as “palace.” The word appears only
rarely in postbiblical Hebrew, and this situation may account for its wide range
of renderings in the LXX, showing that the translators were unaware of its
meaning and that they used the context as their guide.38 The examples pertain
to all the books of the LXX. I pay attention to the MP in the last examples.

ναός (“temple”)
Jer 30(37):18 ‫ל־מ ְשׁ ָפּטֹו יֵ ֵשׁב‬ ְ ְ‫ – ו‬καὶ ὁ ναὸς κατὰ τὸ κρίμα αὐτοῦ καθεδεῖται
ִ ‫אַרמֹון ַע‬
οἶκος (“house”)
Isa 32:14 ‫אַרמֹון נֻ ָטּשׁ‬
ְ – οἶκοι ἐγκαταλελειμμένοι

The following diverse renderings probably reflect contextual guesses:

35  This pertains also to the similarly worded verse ‫י־אשׁ וְ יָ ֵעפוּ‬ֵ ‫וּל ֻא ִמּים ְבּ ֵד‬
ְ ‫י־ריק‬
ִ ‫ַע ִמּים ְבּ ֵד‬
(“Peoples shall labor for naught, and nations have wearied themselves for fire”) – καὶ
οὐ κοπιάσουσιν λαοὶ εἰς κενόν, καὶ ἔθνη ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐκλείψουσιν (“and peoples will not exhaust
themselves for nothing, and nations shall fail in rule”). In this verse MT ‫ בדי אש‬was seem-
ingly rendered by ‫( ברואש‬ἐν ἀρχῇ), but that equivalent reflects the translator’s difficulties
in recognizing the Hebrew words ‫בדי אש‬.
36  In this case it probably was one person who rendered both Jeremiah and the Minor
Prophets (see the previous note). For the assumption that one translator rendered the
OG of Jeremiah and the MP, see Emanuel Tov, The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah
and Baruch: A Discussion of an Early Revision of Jeremiah 29–52 and Baruch 1:1–3:8 (HSM 8;
Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976), 135–51.
37  For details on the renderings of this word, see Robert P. Blake, “Khanmeti Palimpsest
Fragments of the Old Georgian Version of Jeremiah,” HTR 25 (1932): 225–72; esp. 254; Percy
J. Heawood, “‘Armôn and ‘Aram,” JTS 13 (1911–1912): 66–73; Israel Leo Seeligmann, The
Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of Its Problems (Leiden: Brill, 1948), 52; George B.
Caird, “Towards a Lexicon of the Septuagint, I,” JTS 19 (1968): 460–61.
38  The equivalents that come closest to the meaning of the Hebrew are βασίλειον (“palace”)
in Prov 18:19 and ἄμφοδον (literally: “a block of houses surrounded by streets”) in Jer 17:27;
49:27(30:16).

129-148_Dogniez_09-Tov.indd 137 25 Apr 2019 19:51:36

 138 Tov

ἐναντίον (“opposite”)
2 Kgs 15:25 (Q) ‫ית־ה ֶמּ ֶלְך‬ ַ ‫אַרמֹון ֵבּ‬ ְ ‫ –וַ יַּ ֵכּהוּ ְבשׁ ְֹמרֹון ְבּ‬καὶ ἐπάταξεν αὐτὸν ἐν Σαμαρείᾳ
ἐναντίον οἴκου τοῦ βασιλέως
πόλις (“city”)
Isa 34:13 ‫אַר ְמנ ֶֹת ָיה‬
ְ ‫ –וְ ָע ְל ָתה‬καὶ ἀναφύσει εἰς τὰς πόλεις αὐτῶν
ἄντρον (“cave”; hapax in the LXX)
1 Kgs 16:18 ‫ית־ה ֶמּ ֶלְך‬ ַ ‫ל־אַרמֹון ֵבּ‬ ְ ‫ –וַ יָּבֹא ֶא‬καὶ εἰσπορεύεται εἰς ἄντρον τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ
βασιλέως

The following two equivalents referring to specific architectural structures re-

flect contextual guesses:

βάρις (“tower”) Ps 48(47):4, 14; Lam 2:5, 7; 2 Chr 36:19.

πυργόβαρις (“fortified tower”?)
Ps 122(121):7 ‫נֹותיִ ְך‬ ְ ‫י־שׁלֹום ְבּ ֵח ֵילְך) ַשׁ ְלוָ ה ְבּ‬
ָ ‫אַר ְמ‬ ָ ‫ – )יְ ִה‬καὶ εὐθηνία ἐν ταῖς πυργοβάρεσίν
σου

The representation of ‫ ארמון‬as “land”39 may reflect contextual exegesis (cf. es-
pecially the parallel pair ‫ארמון‬//‫ ארץ‬in Mic 5:4), but the frequent occurrence of
this rendering may also indicate the existence of a lexical-exegetical tradition:

γῆ (“country”?)
Jer 9:20(21) ‫נֹותינוּ‬
ֵ ‫אַר ְמ‬ְ ‫י־ע ָלה ָמוֶ ת ְבּ ַחלֹּונֵ ינוּ) ָבּא ְבּ‬ָ ‫ – ) ִכּ‬εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὴν γῆν ὑμῶν
χώρα (“land,” “country”)
Amos 3:9 ‫ל־אַר ְמנֹות ְבּ ֶא ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָריִ ם‬
ְ ‫אַשׁדֹּוד וְ ַע‬ ְ ‫ל־אַר ְמנֹות ְבּ‬ ַ ‎– Ἀπαγγείλατε χώραις
ְ ‫‏‏ה ְשׁ ִמיעוּ ַע‬
ἐν Ἀσσυρίοις καὶ ἐπὶ τὰς χώρας τῆς Αἰγύπτου
Amos 3:10 ‫נֹות ֶיהם‬ ֵ ‫אַר ְמ‬ְ ‫ – ָח ָמס וָ שׁ ֹד ְבּ‬ἀδικίαν καὶ ταλαιπωρίαν ἐν ταῖς χώραις αὐτῶν
Amos 3:11 ‫נֹותיִ ְך‬
ָ ‫אַר ְמ‬ ְ ‫ – וְ נָ בֹזּוּ‬Καὶ διαρπαγήσονται αἱ χῶραί σου
Mic 5:4(5) ‫אַר ְמנ ֵֹתינוּ‬ ְ ‫ – ) ִכּי־יָבֹוא ְב‬καὶ ὅταν ἐπιβῇ ἐπὶ τὴν χώραν ὑμῶν
ְ ‫אַר ֵצנוּ) וְ ִכי יִ ְדר ְֹך ְבּ‬
θεμέλια (“foundations”)

This exegetical tradition differs from the equally frequently occurring transla-
tion θεμέλια in similar contexts in the MP (and elsewhere): Isa 25:2; Jer 6:5;
Hos 8:14; Amos 1:4, 7, 10, 12, 14; 2:2, 5.
The variety of the renderings, especially within one translation unit, shows
the translator’s uncertainty with regard to the meaning of the word. Within

39  It is not impossible that the graphic similarity of ‫ ארמון‬and ‫ אדמה‬influenced the present
rendering, but we need not assume here a variant ‫ אדמה‬or ‫ אדמות‬as was done by Gelston,
“Some Hebrew Misreadings,” 497.

129-148_Dogniez_09-Tov.indd 138 25 Apr 2019 19:51:36

 Textual Value of the Septuagint Version of the Minor Prophets 139

the MP, we meet the rather different renderings χώρα (“land,” “country”) in
Amos 3:9, 10, 11 and Mic 5:4(5) and θεμέλια (“foundations”) in Hos 8:14;
Amos 1:4, 7, 10, 12, 14; 2:2, 5.

3.2 Exegetical Difficulties

The examples in this section are meant to show that exegetical problems in
understanding the Hebrew consonants or their reading could lead to the ma-
nipulation of letters and hence the creation of pseudo-variants. The examples
are chosen mainly from Amos and the personal names in Micah in order to
strengthen the argument.

Amos (Consonants)

Amos 2:16 ‫בֹּורים‬ ִ ְ‫ – ו‬Even the most stouthearted warrior (shall run away
ִ ִ‫אַמּיץ ִלבֹּו ַבּגּ‬
unarmed)
LXX καὶ εὑρήσει τὴν καρδίαν αὐτοῦ ἐν δυναστείαις – and shall find his heart in acts
of dominance

The translator probably manipulated the root letters of ‫אַמּיץ‬ ִ , changing the
waw to a yod, as if the text read ‫ימצא‬.40 One may think that ‫אַמּיץ‬ ִ is a com-
mon Hebrew word, but it is not as it occurs only six times in Scripture and no-
where else in the MP. By the same token, the cognate ‫ ָאמֹץ‬is not recognized in
Zech 6:3, 7, while the root ‫ אמץ‬is recognized in Amos 2:14, probably on the basis
of the context.

Amos 4:5 ‫תֹּודה וְ ִק ְראוּ נְ ָדבֹות‬

ָ ‫ –‏ וְ ַק ֵטּר ֵמ ָח ֵמץ‬And burn a thank offering of leavened
bread and proclaim freewill offerings loudly
LXX καὶ ἀνέγνωσαν ἔξω νόμον καὶ ἐπεκαλέσαντο ὁμολογίας – They read the law out-
side and called for confessions

In the lawless situation depicted by Amos (see v. 4), this verse speaks about
the burning of a thank offering (‫תֹּודה‬ ָ ) made from ‫ ָח ֵמץ‬and about freewill offer-
ings. However, the cultic situation was not recognized by the translator, since
the ‫ נְ ָדבֹות‬in the second stich has been rendered as “confessions”41 and the first
stich is completely different in the LXX, this time with textual implications.
The word for “thank offering” (‫ )תודה‬is misread as ‫תורה‬, a much more frequent
word, possibly because the translator did not know this meaning of ‫ תודה‬or did

40  For the phrase, cf. 2 Sam 7:27 ‫מצא … את לבו‬.

41  For another elusive rendering of this cultic term, see Hos 14:5 ὁμολόγως.

129-148_Dogniez_09-Tov.indd 139 25 Apr 2019 19:51:37

 140 Tov

not understand this meaning in the context. Naturally, these oversights com-
pletely change the context.42 Whether the rendering of the other two words is
likewise based on pseudo-variants is difficult to tell, but it is very tantalizing
to reconstruct the letters that the translator had in mind as ‫וקרא בחוץ תורה‬
instead of ‫תֹּודה‬
ָ ‫וְ ַק ֵטּר ֵמ ָח ֵמץ‬.43 Three of the four letters of ‫ וְ ַק ֵטּר‬are covered by)
‫ וקרא‬note also ‫ וְ ִק ְראוּ‬in the parallel stich). The contexts are completely differ-
ent, but it could be claimed that “reading the law outside” according to the LXX
may be conceived of as a form of sin.

Amos 5:26 MT ‫אתם ֵאת ִסכּוּת ַמ ְל ְכּ ֶכם‬

ֶ ‫‏וּנְ ָשׂ‬‎ ‫ –‏‬And you shall carry off your king Sikkuth
LXX καὶ ἀνελάβετε τὴν σκηνὴν τοῦ Μολοχ – You even took up the tent of Moloch

The translator did not recognize the name Sikkuth, an astral deity, rendered
here from ‫“( ס(ו)כה‬tent”) as if he read ‫סוכת‬.44 The name does not occur else-
where. This rendering may have made it difficult for the translator to render
the next word, ‫ ַמ ְל ְכּ ֶכם‬, which he presented as Moloch.45 This is an unusual
translation, but the translator must have felt the need to add the name of a
foreign God, known in the LXX only in 2 Kgs 23:10 and Jer 32(39):35.

Amos 7:1 ‫אַחר גִּ זֵּ י ַה ֶמּ ֶלְך‬ ֶ ֵ‫ – וְ ִהנּ‬the late-sown crops after the king’s reaping.46
ַ ‫ה־ל ֶקשׁ‬
LXX καὶ ἰδοὺ βροῦχος εἷς Γωγ ὁ βασιλεύς – and behold, one locust ⟨was⟩ Gog the
king.47

The verse deals with the destruction of the late crops by locusts. The verse is
not easy as it involves a hapax legomenon ‫“( ֶל ֶקשׁ‬late-sown crops”) and a rare
word ‫“( גז‬shearing,” “mowing”), occurring three times in Scripture. Both words
have been rendered by different Greek words representing ‫“( ילק‬locust”) and ‫גוג‬
(“Gog”). The first word is not badly chosen as it has two letters in common with

42  See the analysis by Glenny, Amos, 87–88.

43  ἔξω is the standard translation of ‫ בחוץ‬and with the interchange of mem and beth, two of
the three letters of ‫ ָח ֵמץ‬are covered by ‫חוץ‬.
44  Possibly the translator had Amos 9:11 in mind.
45  This textual procedure is described by Glenny, Amos, 89 as one of the forms of dealing
with unknown words (“contextual manipulation”).
46  The JPS translation is accompanied by a footnote: “Meaning of Hebrew uncertain. The
king’s reaping of fodder apparently occurred near the end of the rainy season, and what-
ever the locust destroyed after that could not be replaced for another year.”
47  My own translation. βροῦχος is either a “locust” or a “locust larva” according to LSJ and the
latter meaning is reflected in the translation of NETS “one locust larva, Gog the king.” This
rendering does little to improve the rather absurd LXX translation.

129-148_Dogniez_09-Tov.indd 140 25 Apr 2019 19:51:37

 Textual Value of the Septuagint Version of the Minor Prophets 141

the presumed Vorlage ‫ לקש‬and it belongs to the vocabulary of the context.48

The second word, ‫גוג‬, has one letter in common with the presumed Vorlage
‫גז‬, involving an interchange of gimmel and zayin, but producing a rendering
that is very remote from the context. The Hebrew and Greek contexts are com-
pletely different, involving a third interchange of letters in the LXX. In the new
context of the LXX, there was no longer any room for ‫ אחר‬and the translator
had no choice but to read this word with a daleth/resh interchange as ‫אחד‬. As a
result, according to MT, God created (‫יֹוצר‬ֵ ) the plague of locusts when the late
crops (‫ )לקש‬were beginning to sprout after the king’s reaping (‫)גז‬. However,
according to the LXX, there was a plague of locusts, and “one locust ⟨was⟩ Gog
the king.” While MT is certainly not easy, it does make sense,49 while this can-
not be said of the LXX. How does “Gog the locust” relate to this context? In the
Hebrew text that was in the translator’s mind, Gog is a king.50

Amos 8:6 ‫וּמ ַפּל ַבּר נַ ְשׁ ִבּיר‬

ַ – and selling grain refuse as grain!
LXX καὶ ἀπὸ παντὸς γενήματος ἐμπορευσόμεθα; – and we will trade in every kind
of produce?

‫ ַמ ַפּל‬occurs only twice in Scripture, once with this meaning. Not understanding
the word, the translator substituted the pe with a kaph, reading ‫מכל‬

Amos (Reading [Vowels])

Amos 1:6 ‫לֹותם ּגָ לּות ֶל ֱאדֹום ְׁש ֵל ָמה‬

ָ ְ‫ל־הג‬
ַ ‫ל־א ְר ָּב ָעה לֹא ֲא ִׁש ֶיבּנּו ַע‬
ַ ‫ֹלׁשה ִּפ ְׁש ֵעי ַעּזָ ה וְ ַע‬
ָ ‫ל־ׁש‬
ְ ‫ַע‬
‫ – ְל ַה ְסּגִ יר‬For three transgressions of Gaza, for four, I will not revoke it: Because
they exiled an entire population which they delivered to Edom.
LXX Ἐπὶ ταῖς τρισὶν ἀσεβείαις Γάζης καὶ ἐπὶ ταῖς τέσσαρσιν οὐκ ἀποστραφήσομαι
αὐτούς, ἕνεκεν τοῦ αἰχμαλωτεῦσαι αὐτοὺς αἰχμαλωσίαν τοῦ Σαλωμων τοῦ συγκλεῖσαι
εἰς τὴν Ιδουμαίαν· – For three impious acts of Gaza, and for four, I will not turn
away from them, because of their capturing a captivity of Salomon, to shut
(them)51 up in Idumea.

48  The word must have been difficult for the translator, as its first occurrence was left
untranslated.
49  Shalom M. Paul, A Commentary on the Book of Amos (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress,
1991), 227: “It is probably a reference to a prerogative of reaping (for example, fodder for
horses) that took place toward the end of the late-rain season.”
50  Possibly that picture was influenced by Ezek 38:2, 3; 39:1 where Gog is described as a “chief
prince” (‫)נשיא ראש‬.
51  Parenthesis signs added (E.T.).

129-148_Dogniez_09-Tov.indd 141 25 Apr 2019 19:51:37

 142 Tov

ַ ‫צֹר … ַע‬
Amos 1:9 ‫ל־ה ְסגִּ ָירם גָּ לוּת ְשׁ ֵל ָמה ֶל ֱאדֹום‬
LXX Τύρου … ἀνθ᾿ ὧν συνέκλεισαν αἰχμαλωσίαν τοῦ Σαλωμων

In v. 6, Amos castigates Gaza for exiling an entire community (‫)ּגָ לּות‬, a situa-
tion comparable to the other sins mentioned in this chapter. This situation
recurs in v. 9 where Amos castigates Tyre. ‫ ּגָ לּות‬appears in Scripture both as
“exile” and “exiled community,” and the latter meaning was misunderstood by
the translator who provided a completely different picture. Indeed, ‫ ּגָ לּות‬does
not appear elsewhere with a descriptive adjective (‫) ְׁש ֵל ָמה‬, which may be one
reason for the translator’s mistake, the other one being the fact that elsewhere
it is followed mainly by personal names.52 In this light, the translator’s mistake
of reading ‫“( ְׁשֹלמֹה‬Solomon”) is understandable in both vv. 6 and 9 even though
the “captivity of Salomon” seems to make no sense at all when applied to Gaza
in v. 6 and to Tyre in v. 9 for having “shut up a captivity of Solomon in Idumea.”
We need not try to identify a historical situation that would fit the LXX as was
done by Glenny.53

Amos 1:11 ‫‏שׁ ָמ ָרה נֶ ַצח‬

ְ ‫‏וַ יִּ ְטר ֹף ָל ַעד אַפֹּו וְ ֶע ְב ָרתֹו‬‎ ‫ –‏‬Because his anger raged unceasing
and his fury stormed unchecked.
LXX καὶ ἥρπασεν εἰς μαρτύριον φρίκην αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸ ὅρμημα αὐτοῦ ἐφύλαξεν εἰς νῖκος· –
and seized his shivering fright for a testimony and kept his onslaught unto victory

The translator did not recognize the synonymous parallelism between ‫ ָל ַעד‬and
‫נֶ ַצח‬. Instead, he chose an alternative reading for ‫( עד‬namely, ‫“ ֵעד‬testimony”)
and he rendered ‫ נֶ ַצח‬according to its Aramaic etymology.54
Indeed, ‫ עד‬was interpreted in many different ways in the LXX, often
wrongly.55 This pertains to ‫( ַעד‬preposition, “to”), ‫“( ַעד‬booty”), ‫“( עֹד‬still”), and
‫“( ֵעד‬witness”). Additional instances in the Minor Prophets:

Mic 7:18 ‫א־ה ֱחזִ יק ָל ַעד‬

ֶ ֹ ‫ – ל‬He does not retain his anger forever
LXX καὶ οὐ συνέσχεν εἰς μαρτύριον ὀργὴν αὐτοῦ – And he did not retain his anger
for a witness (= ‫) ְל ֵעד‬
Zeph 3:8 ‫קּומי ְל ַעד‬
ִ ‫ – ְליֹום‬for the day when I arise forever (or: as a prey)

52  E.g., “the exile of Jehoiachin King of Judah” (2 Kgs 25:27; Jer 52:31; cf. Ezek 1:2); ‫גלות כוש‬,
“the exiles of Nubia” (Isa 20:4).
53  Glenny, Amos, 137–38.
54  Glenny, Amos, 134, n. 108.
55  See Leo Prijs, Jüdische Tradition in der Septuaginta (Leiden: Brill, 1948; repr. Hildesheim:
Olms, 1987), 47–54; Gelston, “Difficulties,” 55; Glenny, Amos, 134.

129-148_Dogniez_09-Tov.indd 142 25 Apr 2019 19:51:37

 Textual Value of the Septuagint Version of the Minor Prophets 143

LXX εἰς ἡμέραν ἀναστάσεώς μου εἰς μαρτύριον (= S) – for the day of my arising as a
witness (= ‫) ְל ֵעד‬
Amos 1:12 ‫אַר ְמנֹות ָבּ ְצ ָרה‬ ְ – And it shall devour the fortresses of Bozrah
ְ ‫אָכ ָלה‬
LXX καὶ καταφάγεται θεμέλια τειχέων αὐτῆς. – and it shall devour the foundations
of its walls.

The translation of ‫ ָבּ ְצ ָרה‬as “walls” removes the geographic name from the
Hebrew text. The translator was probably influenced by the frequently occur-
ring “wall” (… ‫חֹומת‬
ַ ) in the context (vv. 7, 10, 14), which was rendered by the
same Greek word. No noun such as Modern Hebrew’s bitzur is known from
Biblical or rabbinic Hebrew, but the translator may have thought of ‫ ִמ ְב ָצר‬.
Bozrah was also not recognized by the translator in Mic 2:12 (see below).

Amos 1:14 ‫סוּפה‬ ָ ‫ – ִבּ ְת‬Amid shouting on a day of battle,

ָ ‫רוּעה ְבּיֹום ִמ ְל ָח ָמה ְבּ ַס ַער ְבּיֹום‬
on a day of violent tempest.
LXX μετὰ κραυγῆς ἐν ἡμέρᾳ πολέμου, καὶ σεισθήσεται ἐν ἡμέρᾳ συντελείας αὐτῆς –
with a cry on the day of battle, and it will be shaken on the day of its destruction.

The translator did not know the word ‫סוּפה‬ ָ , taking it as ‫סֹופהּ‬
ָ and relating it to
Rabba in the first stich. The word is also not recognized elsewhere in the MP
and is explained as ‫סֹוף‬: Nah 1:3 (ἐν συντελείᾳ) and Hos 8:7 ‫סוּפ ָתה‬
ָ ְ‫“( ו‬her whirl-
wind”) – ἡ καταστροφὴ αὐτῶν (“their destruction”).

Amos 3:11 ‫אָרץ‬ ְ ‫ – ַצר‬An enemy, all about the land!

ֶ ‫וּס ִביב ָה‬
LXX Τύρος, κυκλόθεν ἡ γῆ σου – Tyre and your land round about.

The translation reflects ‫ צֹר‬although the context does not speak about Tyre, but
about Ashdod, Egypt, and Samaria (v. 9).

Amos 6:2 ‫ – ִע ְברוּ ַכ ְלנֵ ה ְוּראוּ‬Cross over to Calneh and see …

LXX διάβητε πάντες καὶ ἴδετε – Cross over, all of you, and see …

The translator did not recognize the name of ‫“( ַכ ְלנֵ ה‬Calneh”), reading instead
‫ ֻכ ָלנָ ה‬as in Gen 42:36 and Prov 31:29, quite inappropriately in the feminine form.
In the Greek context “Go from there to Great Hamath, and go down to Gath of
the Philistine,” the words “from there” are now meaningless since the name of
the locality Calneh has been removed.

Amos 6:3 ‫ – ַה ְמנַ ִדּים ְליֹום ָרע וַ ַתּגִּ ישׁוּן ֶשׁ ֶבת ָח ָמס‬Yet you ward off [the thought of] a
day of woe and convene a session of lawlessness.

129-148_Dogniez_09-Tov.indd 143 25 Apr 2019 19:51:37

 144 Tov

LXX οἱ ἐρχόμενοι εἰς ἡμέραν κακήν, οἱ ἐγγίζοντες καὶ ἐφαπτόμενοι σαββάτων ψευδῶν –
Those who pray for an evil day, who draw near and hold fast to false Sabbaths.

The background of the translation ‫ ַשׁ ָּבת‬is unclear. Possibly the translator did
not understand the words ‫ ֶשׁ ֶבת ָח ָמס‬or else he was influenced by the parallel
phrase ‫ ְליֹום ָרע‬. The translator manipulated his rendering since he used the plu-
ral form of Sabbath.

Amos 8:12 ‫שֹׁוטטוּ‬

ְ ְ‫ד־מזְ ָרח י‬ ִ ‫ – וְ נָ עוּ ִמיָּ ם ַעד־יָם‬Men shall wander from sea to
ִ ‫וּמ ָצּפֹון וְ ַע‬
sea and from north to east to seek the word of the Lord, but they shall not find it.
LXX καὶ σαλευθήσονται ὕδατα ἕως θαλάσσης, καὶ ἀπὸ βορρᾶ ἕως ἀνατολῶν περιδρα-
μοῦνται – And the waters will be shaken as far as the sea, and from north to east
they shall run to and fro.

The MT of this verse follows on from v. 11 in a logical way by describing the

consequences of the famine. On the other hand, the “water” of the LXX is un-
connected to the famine. The reading underlying the LXX is clearly based on
a misreading of ‫ ִמיָּ ם‬as ‫ ַמיִ ם‬and the other changes were made as a result of the
initial error. The same error was made in Nah 3:8 and Hos 11:10 and a similar
one appeared in Mic 7:12.

Micah (Personal Names)

The lack of linguistic skills is felt especially in the translation of place names,
which were often rendered as common nouns. Thus, in Mic 1:10–15, the trans-
lator did not recognize the names of seven localities that are understand-
ably difficult, while he did translate other names that are more common. The
other names, mostly in frequent use, were understood: v. 11 ‫ – ַצ ֲאנָ ן‬Σεννααν; v. 12
ָ ְ‫ – י‬Ιερουσαλημ; v. 13 ‫ – ָל ִכישׁ‬Λαχις, ‫ – ִציֹּון‬Σιων, ‫ – יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬Ισραηλ; 14 ‫ – גַּ ת‬Γεθ,
ִ‫רוּשׁ ָלם‬
‫ – יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬Ισραηλ; v. 15 ‫ – ֲע ֻד ָלּם‬Οδολλαμ, ‫ – יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬Ισραηλ.

Mic 1:10 ‫־תּ ְבכּוּ ְבּ ֵבית ְל ַע ְפ ָרה ָע ָפר ִה ְת ַפּ ָלּ ִשׁתי‬

ִ ‎‫‏ ‏ ָבּכֹו אַל‬‎– refrain from weeping, in Beth-
leaphrah, strew dust over your (head).
LXX οἱ ἐν Ακιμ, μὴ ἀνοικοδομεῖτε ἐξ οἴκου καταγέλωτα γῆν καταπάσασθε καταγέλωτα
ὑμῶν – you in Akim, do not rebuild out of a house a laughingstock, besprinkle your
laughingstock with soil.

For ‫ל־ּת ְבּכּו‬

ִ ‫ ַא‬, the translator probably had in mind ‫ל־ּת ְבנו‬
ִ ‫ ַא‬, and for ‫ ְבּ ֵבית‬he
read ‫מבית‬. The change of ‫ ִתּ ְבכּוּ‬to ‫ ִתּ ְבנו‬was influenced by the next word, ‫בית‬.
The translator did not recognize the place name Beth-leaphrah, changing

129-148_Dogniez_09-Tov.indd 144 25 Apr 2019 19:51:37

 Textual Value of the Septuagint Version of the Minor Prophets 145

phonetically the ayin to a het, as if he read ‫מבית לחפרה‬, for which cf. 3:7 ‫וְ ָח ְפרוּ‬
(“were ashamed”) – καὶ καταγελασθήσονται (“and shall be mocked”). The place
name does not occur elsewhere.
On the other hand, since the translator realized that he had omitted a place
name, he added one that was created out of the verbal form ‫ ָבּכֹו‬. That form was
understood as ‫ב כו‬, yielding a rendering οἱ ἐν Ακιμ, “you in Akim,” construed in
parallelism with the preceding οἱ ἐν Γεθ, “you in Geth.”
The last words of this verse in the LXX, καταγέλωτα ὑμῶν, reflect the first
words of v. 11 ‫ עברי לכם‬and most likely they reflect the same root ‫ חפר‬that was
at the base of the rendering of ‫ ְל ַע ְפ ָרה‬.

Mic 1:11 ‫יֹושׁ ֶבת ָשׁ ִפיר‬

ֶ – inhabitant of Shaphir.
LXX κατοικοῦσα καλῶς – though she inhabits her cities well.

The place name Shaphir, occurring only here, was rendered as the rabbinic
Hebrew and Aramaic ‫( ַשׁ ִפּיר‬Dan 4:9, 19). A new context had to be created and
therefore the following words were read in a different fashion: ‫“( ֶע ְריָ ה‬naked”)
became ‫“( ָע ֶר ָיה‬her cities”) and ‫ ב ֶֹשׁת‬was omitted.

Mic 1:11 ‫ – ִמ ְס ַפּד ֵבּית ָה ֵא ֶצ ‏ל‬There is lamentation in Beth-ezel.

LXX κόψασθαι οἶκον ἐχόμενον αὐτῆς – to mourn a house next to her.

The translator wrongly connected ‫ ִמ ְס ַפּד‬with the previous stich and he did not
recognize the place name ‫( ֵבּית ָה ֵא ֶצל‬not found elsewhere). Instead, he trans-
lated the two components of this phrase as “the house” + “near” (as in Lev 6:3),
adapting it to the context by adding the pronoun αὐτῆς: “a house next to her.”

Mic 1:12 ‫יֹושׁ ֶבת ָמרֹות‬

ֶ ‫ –‏‬the inhabitants of Maroth
LXX κατοικούσῃ ὀδύνας – her who dwells in pain

The location Maroth, not occurring elsewhere, was not recognized. The trans-
lator rendered the word etymologically from ‫ ַמר‬or ‫מרר‬, for which cf. the end
of the preceding verse in the translation: πληγὴν ὀδύνης standing in place of
MT ‫ ִמ ֶּכם ֶע ְמ ָדתֹו‬.

Mic 1:14‫אַכזִ יב ‏‬
ְ ‫ – ָבּ ֵתּי‬the houses of Achzib
LXX οἴκους ματαίους – worthless houses.

The place name Achzib was not recognized, which may be surprising but this
locality does not occur often elsewhere (in Judah: Josh 15:44 and in Asher:

129-148_Dogniez_09-Tov.indd 145 25 Apr 2019 19:51:37

 146 Tov

Josh 19:29, Judg 1:31). The translator rendered as if reading ‫ ָבּ ֵתּי ַה ָכזָ ב‬, by way of
interchange he/aleph and disregard of the yod.56 Otherwise this is an etymo-
logical rendering based on the root ‫כזב‬.

Mic 1:15 ‫יֹושׁ ֶבת ָמ ֵר ָשׁה‬

ֶ – Who dwell in Mareshah
LXX κατοικοῦσα Λαχις κληρονομία – O inheritance inhabiting Lachis.

Mareshah (occurring elsewhere six times in Chronicles and once as ‫ מראשה‬in

Josh 15:44) was rendered etymologically as a noun from the root ‫ ירש‬parallel to
‫“( יְ ֻר ָשּׁה‬inheritance”). The etymological linkage was instigated by the preceding
word ‫ ַהיּ ֵֹרשׁ‬and was influenced by the preceding verse where ‫מֹור ֶשׁת גַּ ת‬ ֶ was
rendered by the same noun as here, κληρονομία.

Mic 2:12 ‫ – ְכּצֹאן ָבּ ְצ ָרה‬like sheep of Bozrah

LXX ὡς πρόβατα ἐν θλίψει – like sheep in affliction

The translator did not identify the name Bozrah even though the word occurs
eight times elsewhere. The resulting translation (“sheep in affliction”) reflects,
as it were, ‫כצאן ְבּ ָצ ָרה‬, a phrase that can be accommodated in the context. The
same translator did not recognize ‫ ָבּ ְצ ָרה‬in Amos 1:12, where it was rendered
as a noun from the root ‫ ;בצר‬see above. Neither did the translator of Jer 49:22
(LXX 30:16) recognize the word, where it was rendered as a noun from the
root ‫“( בצר‬its strongholds”), and 49:13 (30:7), where it was rendered ἐν μέσῳ
αὐτῆς (“in her midst”). Possibly this was the same translator who translated the
Minor Prophets (see n. 36).

4 The Balance between the Assumption of the Translator’s Exegesis

and That of a Different Vorlage

When summarizing our relation to the LXX of the Minor Prophets, we are con-
stantly torn between two extremes, the assumption that the translator freely
rephrased his Vorlage by way of exegesis or that he found a different Vorlage.
In the preceding analysis, I suggested that the translator of some books of the
MP experienced several lexical difficulties and that in these cases he created
imaginary variants. I focused on Amos and Micah. I cannot prove that this

56  Cf. the equivalence ‫ – ָכּזָ ב‬κενά in Hos 12:2.

129-148_Dogniez_09-Tov.indd 146 25 Apr 2019 19:51:37

 Textual Value of the Septuagint Version of the Minor Prophets 147

procedure was followed more frequently by the translator of the MP than by

others, but this is indeed my impression.
I recognized several pseudo-variants in consonants:

Amos 2:16 ‫אַמּיץ‬ ִ ְ‫( ו‬LXX ‫ ;)ימצא‬4:5 ‫תֹּודה‬ ָ ‫( וְ ַק ֵטּר ֵמ ָח ֵמץ‬LXX ‫;)וקרא בחוץ תורה‬
5:26 ‫( ִסכּוּת‬LXX: ‫ ;)סוכת‬7:1 ‫אַחר גִּ זֵּ י ַה ֶמּ ֶלְך‬ ַ ‫ה־ל ֶקשׁ‬ ֶ ֵ‫( וְ ִהנּ‬LXX ‫ ;)ילק … גוג‬Amos 8:6 ‫וּמ ַפּל‬ ַ
‫( ַבּר נַ ְשׁ ִבּיר‬LXX ‫ ;)מכל‬Mic 1:10 ‫־תּ ְבכּוּ‬ ִ ‫ל‬‎ ‫( ‏ ָבּכֹו אַ‬LXX ‫ ;)ב כו אל תבנו‬1:10 ‫ְבּ ֵבית ְל ַע ְפ ָרה‬
(LXX ‫ ;(מבית לחפרה‬1:14 ‫אַכזִ יב‬ ְ ‫( ָבּ ֵתּי‬LXX ‫ ;) ָבּ ֵתּי ַה ָכזָ ב‬Hab 2:13 ‫( ריק בדי‬LXX ‫)רבים‬.

Many examples simplified the reading of words that were considered dif-
ficult by the translator: Amos 1:6, 9 ‫( ְׁש ֵל ָמה‬LXX ‫ ;) ְׁשֹלמֹה‬1:11 ‫( ָל ַעד‬LXX ‫לעד‬ ֵ );
1:14 ‫סוּפה‬
ָ (LXX ‫סֹופהּ‬ ָ ); 6:2 ‫( ַכ ְלנֵ ה‬LXX ‫ ;) ֻכ ָלנָ ה‬6:3 ‫( ֶשׁ ֶבת‬LXX ‫ ;) ַשׁ ָּבת‬8:12 ‫( ִמיָּ ם‬LXX ‫;) ַמיִ ם‬
Mic 1:11 ‫( ָשׁ ִפיר‬LXX ‫ ;) ַשׁ ִפּיר‬2:12 ‫( ָבּ ְצ ָרה‬LXX ‫) ְבּ ָצ ָרה‬.
Schuurmans Stekhoven (1887) mentioned the translator’s manipulations
when faced with difficult words, and this is also the understanding of Glenny
in the third chapter of his monograph named “The Translation of Difficult and
Unknown Words.”57 Likewise, according to Cécile Dogniez, the translator of
the MP is basically a literal translator;58 he makes mistakes, but he sometimes
intentionally adapts the new equivalent to his understanding of the context.
What is particularly striking in this translation is that the deviations from
MT often come in pairs or threes. Once a new context was created in the
LXX due to a misreading, the translator needed to adapt further details in the
translation to his understanding of the context. This was remarked upon by
Schuurmans Stekhoven,59 Anthony Gelston,60 Cécile Dogniez61 as well as by
others and is visible in some of the examples above.62
The Minor Prophets in Greek remains a challenging book for the study of ex-
egesis, while, for its text-critical value, the judgment of Schuurmans Stekhoven
remains valid: “the importance of the LXX for the criticism of the Masoretic
Text of the Dodekapropheton is very slight.”

57  Glenny, Amos, 71–108.

58  Dogniez, “Volonté,” 633–36.
59  Stekhoven, Dodekapropheton, 97–98.
60  Gelston, “Some Difficulties.”
61  Dogniez, “Volonté,” 633–36.
62  Amos 5:26, 7:1, 8:12; Mic 1:10; Hab 2:13.

129-148_Dogniez_09-Tov.indd 147 25 Apr 2019 19:51:37

129-148_Dogniez_09-Tov.indd 148 25 Apr 2019 19:51:37