The Text of the Septuagint: Its Corruptions and Their Emendation

3 For thus we have to write it - avoiding any thought of homonyms in
classical Greek, such as δ, expressing pity, envy, contempt, or δδ, άά,
expressing laughter - in the translation of Judges, which stands on a
much lower level than Joshua; 6: 22 cccc is in all recensions (only MN...
reading acta), except Lucian who displays οίμμοι, La. eu me; 11: 35 era is
in the late Β text only, the others having οϊμμοι.
4 Here and in 41 (34) : 5 an emendation in the Greek is required, and in
our passage in the Hebrew as well. In both passages the burning of
spices at the funeral was no longer understood at a later date. This
0
resulted in a change of καΟσαι = «pfe into κλαϋσσι which seemed to
make better sense along with κόψασθαι. Consequently the construction
was changed from dative to accusative, a seemingly major operation
which, however, is not without parallels in the LXX. In 41 (34) : 5 this
has been seen already and recently accepted in the apparatus of BH 3
.
The consequences for 22: 18 have not been drawn. Here BH 3
says with
Cornill that for the second ΠΒΟ% which is unlikely in itself, the LXX
reads i33\ Yet after LXX 22: 18 has been restored in conformity with
LXX 41 (34) : 5, it is obvious that the genuine Hebrew was 1D*l4r;.
5 We may therefore read Ezek. 6: 11 ΠΚΠ for ΠΝ, which thus disappears
from the Hebrew lexicon, 18: 10; 21: 20 being corrupt. Therefore we
cannot restore εύγε ol for the corrupt έγένοντο Mic. 2:1, but should read
ούαΐ oi, comparing Mic. 7: 4 where "ΊΠ has been restored for the corrupt
ÛT> after the Greek.
6 ήδύ μοι δτι Isa. 44: 16 and έττεχάρητε for you shouted ΠΧΠ, Ezek. 25: 3.
7 Did he read D'St^n < 'in > by way of dittography, or did he merely
guess? At any rate, the meaning woe to has been in his mind.
8 Cf. Plato, ώ, τί λέγεις, Protag. 309.
EXCURSUS ix, pages 237-241
ι With this we must not confuse another interchange (Bl.-Debrunner
§363; Mayser π 1, 234 f.), that of ind. fut. and subj. aor., suggested and
made easier by their formal relationship, e.g. Isa. 10: 14 διαφεύξεταί με
ή άντείτττ) μοι. Its rareness in the papyri, like that of the deliberative
subjunctive (Isa. 1: 5 τί έτι ττληγητε and Bl.-Debr. §366), may be due to
the kind of documents represented in the Ptolemaic papyri.
2 ώσεί τις ψηλαφήσαι τυφλός is optatious in simili (Thiersch p. 101, who,
apart from this passage, quotes Gen. 33: 10; Num. 11:2; 22: 4; Deut.
8: 5; 32: 11).
3 We have the same corruption in the doublet in Josh. 1: 8 εύοδωθήση καί
εύοδώσει τάς οδούς σου Bcz, where we must read ευοδώσεις with the
others and Rahlfs as well, although there is a complication in the variant
εύοδώσω, given by bdgnpt Syr. La. (Lugd. Lucifer). Just as in this last
variant, which is mainly, but not exclusively, Lucianic, the corruption
-σω for -σεις is in Ezek. 20: 4, where I emended it in 1936 and two years
later was justified by the Scheide papyrus which reads εκδικήσεις.