In a previous blog post, Latter-day Saints and the Bible, I made the following comment about James’ use of Amos 9:11 in the LXX (vs. the Hebrew) during the Council of Jerusalem:
Therefore, a text or series of texts that may be seen as “weak” at best, in light of further explicit revelation, be used by the Church to support a doctrine. Another potent example would be the case of the use of Amos 9:11 (LXX) in Acts 15 by James. The text is used as Old Testament support for the belief that Gentiles do not have to be circumcised before entering the New Covenant. However, when one reads this text in its context, nothing is said about the cessation of the requirement of circumcision; furthermore, James is reliant upon the LXX notwithstanding its obvious translation mistakes. In Acts 15:13–17, James appeals to Amos 9:11–12 in an effort to support through scripture the taking of the gospel directly to the Gentiles and the cessation of circumcision. It even seems James’ quotation helps settle the debate. The critical portion of Amos 9 reads
In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this. (Amos 9:11)
This reading comes from LXX Amos, although there is a bit of movement. For instance, “the Lord” is an addition. The LXX actually omits the object, reading, “so that the remnant of the people might seek, and all the nations . . .” There is also a clause missing from Acts’ quotation (“and set it up as the days of old”). The important observation, however, is the Greek translation’s relationship to the Hebrew. The crucial section reads in the Greek, “so that the remnant of the people might seek,” but in the Hebrew, “that they may possess the remnant of Edom.” The confusion with Edom arises likely because of the lack of the mater lectionis which we find in MT in the word אדום. Without it, the word looks an awful lot like אדם , “man,” or “humanity.” The verb “to possess” (יירשׁו), was also misunderstood as “to seek” (ידרשׁו). It is unlikely that MT is secondary. First, there’s no object for the transitive verb εκζητησωσιν, “that they might seek.” Second, the reading in MT makes more sense within the context. David’s fallen house would be restored so that it might reassert its authority, specifically in overtaking the remnant of Edom (see Amos 1:11–12) and “all the nations,” for which Edom functions as a synecdoche (Edom commonly acts as a symbol for all of Israel’s enemies [Ps 137:7; Isa 34:5–15; 63:1–6; Lam 4:21]). The notion that the restoration of the Davidic kingdom would cause the remnant of the people and all the nations to seek the Lord is also a bit of a disconnection within Amos. This quotation shows not only that the early church relied on the Septuagint, but that it rested significant doctrinal decisions on the Greek translation, even when it represented a misreading of the underlying Hebrew. Christians today reject the inspiration of the LXX, but the New Testament firmly accepted it, and if the New Testament is inspired in its reading of LXX Amos 9:11-12, which is itself a misreading of the original reading, then the current Hebrew Old Testament is in error. (See Gary D. Martin, Multiple Originals: New Approaches to Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism [Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010], pp. 255-61 for more information on this issue).
The following is Lenski, a conservative Lutheran, on the relevant textual issues:
That glorious promise was now being fulfilled. But not in Israel alone, and not by building the church out of Jews only. Amos, like the other prophets, was permitted to see that the great restored Tabernacle of David would include also the Gentiles. The ἄν is rarely used with ὅπως in the New Testament (R. 986); but it does not add “an additional note of uncertainty,” for the entire note is one of expectancy, the connective denoting divine purpose, and God’s purposes are always realized. The Hebrew reads: “That they may possess the remnant of Edom and of all the heathen,” etc.; the LXX translate: “That those remaining of men may seek out [the Lord], and all the Gentiles,” etc. It seems as though the translation of the LXX was made from a text that had the Hebrew reading adam (men) instead of ʾedom (Edom) and the verb yidroshu (seek) instead of yiroshu (possess). The question is one that concerns the Hebrew text. James was content with the rendering of the LXX. As far as possessing Edom is concerned, Amos certainly did not have in mind a political possession, for he adds “all the heathen” (goyim), and no prophet spoke of a political domination of all the heathen or Gentiles on the part of Israel. This possession would be entirely spiritual. Perhaps that is the reason that James left the LXX as it was.
He was concerned mainly with this word about “all the Gentiles.” God’s great purpose in restoring David’s Tabernacle reached out to “all the Gentiles,” including, of course, also Edom, as we have already seen that it included also the Samaritans (8:5, etc.). However the textual question regarding the Hebrew and the LXX is answered, the point of the quotation is not affected as far as the use made of it by James is concerned. The great Messianic restoration was intended most particularly for the Gentiles, their coming into it made David’s Tabernacle greater than ever. The limiting relative clause, “upon whom has been called my name,” states that this divine purpose will be fulfilled only in the case of the believing Gentiles. The addition ἐπʼ αὑτούς is a case of incorporating a redundant antecedent into the relative clause: “upon whom my name has been called, upon them,” R. 723. The masculine relative after τὰ ἔθνη is used because persons are referred to.
To call the Lord’s name upon the Gentiles is to bring them the revelation of the Lord (see ὄνομα in 2:21, 28; 3:6); note the same expression in James 2:7 (Greek). To have that name called upon one again and again (perfect tense) is to be present where that name and revelation constantly resounds, namely in the worship of God’s people. The relative clause thus designates these Gentiles as believing worshippers. “All” considers them as being many. In the A. V. note the marginal note with 9:12, which renders the Hebrew exactly.
The close of the quotation is: “saith the Lord who does these things,” λέγει Κύριος ὁ ποιῶν ταῦτα. This statement sets the prophet’s seal on his utterance as being the Lord’s own word, the word of him who carries out what he says. We cannot omit the article before the participle as a few texts do, because this would result in the impossible sense: “Saith the Lord by doing these things,” this is contrary also to the Hebrew. (R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles [Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961], 610-11)
Support Scriptural Mormonism
Support Scriptural Mormonism
