How is it that the LXX reads so differently from the MT? Scholars allow
for the possibility that the LXX attests a Hebrew text different from the MT
or, on the other hand, that the translator had the same consonantal text in
from of him as is preserved in the MT, but he interpreted his text differently.
There are three main differences between the MT and LXX for Amos 9:12:
1.
Possess (MT) vs. seek (LXX). The MT has the word ירש (yarash),
a common word (230x) that means “possess.” The LXX’s use of εκζητεω seems to correspond
to a Hebrew text not with ירש (yarash) but with דרש (darash),
also a common word (164x) and one meaning “seek.”
2.
Edom (MT) vs. mankind (LXX). Anyone who knows Hebrew can
easily imagine what has happened. A Hebrew text written without vowels might
contain a word that could be read either as Edom or as adam, which is
the name for the man in the early chapters of Genesis precisely because it is a
Hebrew word meaning “mankind.” In a Hebrew text with only consonants, the word Edom
and the word adam would often look identical (אדם) and a reader would decide
which word was intended based on context. In this particular example, it looks
like the context led some people to think of Edom and other people to think of
mankind. Now, it is not quite that simple, because the MT has a letter (a waw)
in our word that functions like a vowel (a mater lectoinis) so that the
word (אדום) has to be read as Edom, or at least with an o-vowel sound in
the second syllable. That means the LXX translator either had a Hebrew text
slightly different from our MT (missing the waw) or ignored the waw
or overlooked it or thought it was wrong. Or, just maybe, the translator
thought he was offering the sense of the passage despite departing from the
literal wording.
3.
Object (MT) vs. subject (LXX). This point again has to
do with the reading Edom/mankind. In the MT, Edom functions as the
object of the verb (possess), whereas in the LXX, mankind functions as
the subject of the verb (seek). Sometimes in Hebrew a reader has to take a
guess about whether a particular noun is the subject or object of the verb, but
the MT clearly presents Edom as the object of the verb because it
includes a little word (את, et) that signals the direct object. The LXX
translator, however, apparently either had a Hebrew text lacking this little
word, or he ignored it, or he interpreted it differently from its normal function.
Again, the translator may have felt that he was offering the sense of the
passage without adhering strictly to the words.
. . .
We do not know what led the translator to render the passage the way he
did. Perhaps he had a Hebrew text slightly different from our Hebrew text,
although no such Hebrew text is extant. Perhaps he misread his Hebrew and
interpreted it along the lines of a wider biblical theme (the conversion of the
nations). Or perhaps he arrived at this interpretation intentionally, through
no misreading. Whatever the case, at the Jerusalem Council (as narrated by Luke),
James found in the LXX Amos 9:12 confirmation for the events he himself had
witnessed. God was now calling a people for himself out of the nations, as Amos
had predicted so long beforehand. (Edmon L. Gallagher, Translation of the
Seventy: History, Reception, and Contemporary Use of the Septuagint [Abilene,
Tex.: Abilene Christian University Press, 2021], 142-44, 145)