b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Re: [b-hebrew] how different spellings got into the Hebrew Bible

From: George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>
To: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] how different spellings got into the Hebrew Bible
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 19:12:56 +1000

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)
www.moore.edu.au

[b-hebrew] how different spellings got into the Hebrew Bible, Steve Miller, 04/23/2010
- Re: [b-hebrew] how different spellings got into the Hebrew Bible, K Randolph, 04/26/2010
  - Re: [b-hebrew] how different spellings got into the Hebrew Bible, George Athas, 04/27/2010
    - Re: [b-hebrew] how different spellings got into the Hebrew Bible, K Randolph, 04/27/2010
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: [b-hebrew] how different spellings got into the Hebrew Bible, Garth Grenache, 04/27/2010
  - Re: [b-hebrew] how different spellings got into the Hebrew Bible, George Athas, 04/27/2010