[b-hebrew] how different spellings got into the Hebrew Bible
kwrandolph at gmail.com
Tue Apr 27 11:43:09 EDT 2010
The question in the article concerned the understanding of the parallelism,
where the translator of Matthew (assuming the old histories are correct that
Matthew originally wrote in Hebrew or Aramaic) did not understand it, rather
tried to have Jesus ride on two animals, while the LXX correctly translated
that aspect of the verse.
Karl W. Randolph.
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 2:12 AM, George Athas <George.Athas at moore.edu.au>wrote:
> Actually, Karl, the LXX does change the MT in Zech 9.9. It’s not Matthew’s
> error (or his translator’s). The MT describes the coming king as נושׁע,
> which is a Niphal passive participle. The LXX has rendered this as an
> active, σωζων, probably because it found it inconceivable that the coming
> king is ‘liberated’ (MT). It therefore took the liberty (excuse the pun) to
> render an active in place of the passive.
> GEORGE ATHAS
> Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
More information about the b-hebrew