I just read a paper by Jan Joosten in the online publication Academia.org called “The Aramaic Background of the Seventy”. In it he proposes that the people who translated the LXX were more familiar with Aramaic than Hebrew. Even though they tried to be true to a Hebrew original, some of the mistranslations may be related to Aramaic rather than to a different Vorlage of the Hebrew text.
Some of the evidences that he cites may actually be remnants of an older Hebrew pronunciation. The ones he mentioned are also found in the New Testament.
I mention this as some on this list may be interested in the idea as well.
Karl W. Randolph.
Aramaic background of the LXX
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.