Vs. 16 Amos 9:11 lxx
quoted at length here. The principal variations from the lxx here are: 1) μετὰ ταῦτα for ‘in those days’ because of the content and the
context there, there is nothing for the latter to refer; 2) κατεστραμμένα for κατεσκαμμένα. The reading κατεσκαμμένα, though very highly supported, has apparently been
introduced here from the lxx.
While the B text of the lxx has
this reading, the A text has κατεστραμμένα; 3) the
addition of τὸν κύριον (in vs. 17) to complete the sentence.
Though τὸν
κύριον is added in some copies of the lxx it was obviously no part of the
original text; others supply the accusative with με; 4) the omission of the phrase ‘just as in the days of αἰῶνος,’ for in the Christian teacher’s eyes, the
restoration has assumed a higher significance; 5) the addition of γνωστὰ ἀπʼ αἰῶνος (vs. 18), of which more presently.
The lxx differs from the Hebrew in one
important point. For, לְמַעַן יירְשׁוּ אֶת־שְׁאֵרִית אֱדוֹם ‘that they may inherit
(possess) the remnant of Edom,’ the lxx
must have read ‘restore’ for ‘possess’ (a small lexical difference from the
verbal form יירְשׁוּ with a
daleth instead of the resh) and אדום
(‘Adam’) for אֱדֹום (Edom) and
then either omitted the אֶת־
or treated it as introducing the subject of the verb. See Gesenius, 168, and
arguing for his statement Ewald, Gram.
no. 277 (pp. 600–01). On the phrase, ‘the remnant of Edom’ see 2 Kings 14:7.
There is no case exactly analogous to this, where an active verb is followed by
a noun introduced by אֶת־.
If possible, its force would be ‘I mean the remnant of men.’ If it had preceded
the verb, the difficulty would have vanished ‘as for the remnant of men, they
shall seek etc.’
John Lightfoot
(II, p. 698) supposes that the later Jews altered this due to hostility to
Edom. Evidence, and probability alike, are against this supposition. The
typical significance which was given to Edom by the rabbis (see John Lightfoot
l.c.) is important because the difference in general purport between the Hebrew
and the Greek is reduced to a minimum. The Greek becomes a loose paraphrase of
the Hebrew original. Either would fairly express St. James’ meaning. If he
spoke Hebrew, his Greek report might intentionally introduce and substitute the
familiar Greek reading. If it was in Greek, he might not think it necessary to
alter the well-known form of words, unless there was not conformity with the
original. The Hebrew says in effect that the tabernacle of David was and held
sway over all the nations; the Greek, that all the nations should seek it, seek
the Lord (see Alford).
τὴν σκηνὴν Δαυὶδ This rebuilt tabernacle of David is the
church of Christ, the abode of David’s son. See especially the form of the Hosanna in St. Mk
11:10—εὐλογημένη ἡ ἐρχομένη βασιλεία τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Δαυίδ· ὡσαννὰ ἐν τοῖς ὑψίστοις; Luke 1:32—τὸν θρόνον Δαυὶδ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ; comp. Acts 13:34 τὰ ὅσια Δαυὶδ. Comp. Is 16:5 where this is associated with
messianic days. (J. B. Lightfoot,
The Acts of Apostles: A New Discovered Commentary, ed. Ben Witherington III,
Todd D. Still, and Jeanette M. Hagen [The Lightfoot Legacy Set 1; Downers
Grove, Ill.: IPV Academic, 2014], 197-98, emphasis in bold added)
