James's Quotation of Amos 9 in Acts 15 - P Tanner - JETS Mar `12

21 Pages·2012·5.8 MB·English

IETS ss/1 (2012) 65-8s
JAMES'S QUOTATION OF AMOS 9 TO SETTLE THE
JERUSALEM COUNCIL DEBATE IN ACTS 15
J. PAUL TANNER-
I. INTRODUCTION
The book of Acts is the story of the eady chwch in ttansition. Oae
of the definhg moments ir1 its transition ftom an initially all-Jewish
chwch to a chutch composed of both Jews ard Gentiles occurred at the
Jerusalem Cormcil recotded in Acts 15. That Gentiles could become part
of the people of God had been accepted eadie! as a result of Peter's
ministty in t.l.re home of Comelius (Acts 11:18). Yet there were liogering
questions, patticulatly in what would be expected of Gentiles regarding
their conduct alrd adherence to Jewish customs. Some Cfuistians of
Jewish desceot were ofthe opinion that Gentiles needed to keep the Law
aod be citcurncised. In fact, some held that Gentiles could not be saved
apait ffom this (Acts 15:1, 5). More "enlightened" Christiarr leaders (such
as Paul and Bamabas) strongly obiected to arry attempr to impose such
Jewish customs on the Gentiles. Yet the issue was so cofltentious that a
summit meeting was needed in |erusalem in order for the senior leaders of
the church to make an officiel pronouncement on this subject. This
council took place in AD 49, ptobably oot lorg after Paufs fust
missionary joumey.
At the council, James (the brotler of the I-ord) spoke lasg which
seems to reflect that by this time tle eady chwch looked to him as one of
its seniot spokesmen, if oot its most ptominent leader (cf. Gal 2:6-9),
Wi&James's speech, the debate was setded. Of particulai importance was
James's appeal to Amos 9:1.1.-72, as this text gave dre scriptural basis for
his argurnent and the resulting decision of the couocil. The Amos
quotation fefeis to the rebuilding of David's "booth" (ot hut) and links
this with the r€atheting of Gentiles who are known by God's name. This
paper will seek to undetstaad the meaning of the Amos quotatiofl in its
own cofltexg horrr' tle IXX rendeted the verses into Greek, hdw the NT
relates to bodr the MT arrd L)O( and finally &e hermeneutics inwolved
and what theological conclusions can be &awn from James's appeal to
Anos 9.
The use of Amos 9:11-12 ia Acts 15 has been the subject of much
discussion in modem theological debate. Covenant theologiaos have
understood this as indicative of the church replacing Israel in God's
program (replacement theologJr), s/hereas dispensational theologiaos have
' Paul T2nner is Middle East diecrot ofBEE \r7orld,23262 CR 181, Bulldd. TX 75757.
66 JOURNAL OF THE EVI\NGELIC-{L THEOLOGIC.II SOCIETY
taaditiooally algued dlat the ftrlfillment of Amos 9:11-12 is not for dre
present age but rather in the millenaium when Israel is restored. In this
paper, I will seek to ptopose a thitd altemative that avoids what I believe
to be the pitfalls of the othet two approaches.
II. THE CONTEXT OF AMOS
In light of dre inroductory information found irr Amos 1:1, the
book of Amos can be dated about 765-760 BC. The book is primadly
coacemed with tle nordrem kingdom of Israel during the years preceding
the Assyrian invasion. During the days that Jeroboam II ruled ovet Istae!
the land expetienced a ceftain ptosperity and tlanqufity, yet this was but a
deceptive veneet over the moral aad spititual wicke&ress of the kingdom.
As a rcsult God aonounced drat judgrnent was comiag in the form of
foreign invasion and exile ftom tle land (note esp. Amos 5:25-27;6:7;
7:11). God used the prophet Amos to de.lounce the oatioo's coruptioo
ard the leadership behind it, and then to pronouoce the judgment that
was soon to fall.
The book of Amos teflects a carefi:lly worked literary artistry.l
Following a bdef prologue (1:1-2), the book is composed of thtee major
sectrons. The fust (1:3-2:16) consists of a seties of judgment otacles
against vatious nations, the eighth and linal one being Istael itself. The
central section Q:1,4:14), consisting of words of wamiag and woe
pronouncemeflts fot Israel is composed of five divisions araoged in a
chiastic sttuctute. The final sectlon (:1-9:15) consists of trvo major
divisions. The fust (:1-8:3) is a seties of visions to reinforce the notioa
tlat judgment will not be forestalled. The second (8:4-9:15) comprises tl.re
fina.l coaftontation about judgment upoo the natior, but witl the added
note of "salvation"-a feftlaot will be spared and 6.nal restoration is
envisioned.
Although the thrust of the book is upon the indictrnent and
ploflouflcement of judgment upon Israel the topic of Gentiles receives
minot attention. In the opening section of the bool t}le sins of six
Gentile nations are stuveyed, and punishment is ptoclaimed for them. At
the end of the book we find a short but cleat description of Istael's
testotation. Included in dris testotation motif, however, is a positive
statement about blessing upon Geotiles. Such Gentile blessing is
associated with God's raising up the fallen booth/hut of David (Amos
9:11-12). It is this thatJames appeals to in Acts 15.
1 For a detailed presentation of the litetari' stmctue of Amos, see J. Paul 'Ihmer,
'Amos; StnctMl Features of the Book," Supplement to Sesslon Twenty-Three, ar
hnp://w.p,ultanner.org, under Old Tesr Notes,Vol. IL
9
JAMES'S QUOTATION OF AMOS 67
III. TltE MT OF AMOS 9:11-12
Translation of the MT Hebtew MI
rn1ot:l,,
I vill nisc up the fal€n booth/hur ofDavjd n)pi1'r11 npq-ns o'py
and I will Mll up irs bleaches li't''lF-nts '!_r'ql
aod ns tuins I will nisc up Di:,ir t,!bl+
and I will lebuild it
ir'4ErJ
,s (h) dr days of old, :Eh9 ?,!
'rh order rh.t thel mighr posr$ the remnant olEdoo blrr nt$r'rN $_r. pd,"
and/even all the ceircs, E:ij;--tI
upon whom IlI name is czl]cd, Eit')! 'Fu, Nli?J,.rgiN
declares thc LORD who do€s ihis. :nq ntpl ;rl,nt-El!
1. h that dry. The opening phrase "in t}lat day,, places tle following
scene in the indefinite futue., This is often used of a time of judgment,
sometimes in regard to the day of the LORD, occasionally in reference to
God's testoration worL but at other times as merely ttaositional witl no
specific time in view. In the present corrtext, it moves the scene beyond
that described in the preceding velses. The pteceding pericope (9:1-10)
highlighted the inescapability of God's judgrnent upon Israel at the hands
of foreign nations. Their covenaflt status before God would not protect
them ftom the impendiog doom. Neverheless a ray of hope was offeted
in Amos 9:8, "a.levertheless, I will oot totally desffoy the house ofJacob,,
declares the LORD." God would spare a rerrnant (the ,temel,, in v. 9)
rvith whom he would eveotually briog about a gtacious iestoratioo. The
words "in that day'' advaoce the revelation from God,s oupouting of
judgment to tlut futute day when rcstoration begins.
2. The falhn boath of Datid. The restoration commences vith God
taising up the fallen booth of David (:'11 n;o). This phrase does flot occut
elsewhete in the OT. Rather, this is a metaphorical way (itorrical) of
refering to "the house of David," i.e. the Davidic dynasty of kings (e.g. 1
Kgs "12:19 20,26).'flirs is not so much the kiogdom itself as the kingship
that govems the kingdom (oote 1 Kgs 14:7-8), although admittedly one
goes wit}l t}le other. God had made a covenant srith David (the Davidic
coveflant) promising that one from his seed would have arl eteriral throne
and de (2 Sam 7:11b-16). The wod i.rpp commonly refers to a booth for
the Feast of Tabemacles, but it can also tefer to a tempoiary sheltei (2
Sam 11:11; l Kgs 20:12; lor. 4:5).3In the cofltext ofAmos 9, the ,.booth
of David' looks at t}re dilapidared state of the kingship from Davids Iine
(rence, it is itoaically described as a "bootH' or ..huC, rathet than hawing
iFor funhtr discussioo, see Dodas Srurft,.nmos,,, n Hor .Jatuh [xtsC 3\,W^co,
TX: Word, 198? 399.
I Some kxflslado.s 1fl Acts 15:16 hrve the ,tabemacle ofDavid.,, bur this shoutd noi be
mi,u.der",ood r, rhe raoernacli qhse s,tcri6.e. rnd $or.hp rool, pt,(.
68
JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAI SOCIETY
the dgnity of a "house'),a This rotion is reinfotced by speaking of it as
"fallen." Pdor to Amos's day, the Davidic line of kings had suffered the
indigrity of seeing the nation split iflto t}le rorthem aod southem
kingdoms in 931 BC. Following Amos's day, the notthem kingdom would
go into eile by Assytia Fn/21 Bq and the soutlem kiagdom by
Babylon (586 BC). Amos 9:11, however, predicted that in a future day this
fallen khgship from Davids line would be faised up, thar is, reestablished
and given prominence once again.5 In the rcmainder of verse 11, the
metaphor shifts dighdy, so t}tat the Davidic kingship appears as a
sttuctwe whose walls and ruins are fepaired and rebuilt. Care should be
exercised not to equate this with a literal rebuilding of Jerusalem. The
twofold use of o'?g in veise 11 suggess &at the entire verse looks at the
restotation of dre kingship, not necessatily a physical rebuilding of a city,6
3- The pnfo.re ckaw: to po$xj Yerse T2begts with the conjunction of
pu4rose l!Df, "in order that." According to the MT (which differs
considembly from the LXE, t}le pulpose of restoriflg the Davidic
kingship is that "they might possess the remoarrt of Edom." Edom had
been tie historic enemy of Istael in the OT.7 In light of the following line
('and aU the nations'), it seems that Edom is used in tl.ris vese as an
illustration. Edom repteseoted a nadon once at great eimity with Istael
but v,hich in the futute day of the restored Davidic kiagship would have a
completely different reJationship. The word "possess" reed not signi$
miiitaty coflquest. Although the word ra1 was often used of Israel
defeating the nations of Canaan and taking possession of their terdtories
following the exodus from Eg;pt ("s 105:44), *ris type of terminology is
I Mccomiskey is coffect in concluding rhat the booth ,,reftrs to a tude shelter (a 'hut)
and pictures the ftouse' of David that was becoming a dilapidated shack. By AmoJs rrrne the
Davidic dynasty had falen so lov that it would no longer be cz1led z house,, flhomas E.
Mccomrskey. 'Amo. pBC /rGrmd Rapids: Zondeaan. lr8)l ]lrJ.
5 That the promise in Amos 9:11 would 6od tu1fillment in the messjadc Davidic hog
was oot uaique to the tust cefltury Chiisriafl comuiry. A document cornposed by a men
ber of the qrrDmn cornnuoiq, 4Q Flor eglrm (4eFlor), quotes Amos 9:11 in this regrd.
Jacob M. Milgrom d2tes this to the earty tust century (,Fiorilegiufl A Midfish on 2 Sarnuet
a PsaJ-J:rs 1-2," n Pxhain, Olbel Connenlaner, ad Rr/ated DMneNr Vo]l. 6B ot The Dead
Sea Scmk; Hebrea, Annaic, d d Gftek Text! ,,tth Erytirh TranhtiuLr, Lowsttlte Westrniaster
John Kno\ 20021 2aD. Qurran document CD 7116 atso quotes Aoos 9:11.
6 The tust persoo si.gular Qal impedect verb fom E i$ only occuft foul olhe! times in
the Ol and interesdngty in two ofthese we have n1essj2nic prooises. In Deut 18:18, cod
promises to raise up a prophet oae$iah), and h Jq 30:9 we read of ..Da1,id then kmg,
vhoo I vifl raise up for them." The verb E pS (.I vifl rarse up,) is very wel suited to the
notion of God elevatiry one to the position of ruling as king
. ]Fo: a heleFn surey of Edom and the Edomites, see Ke!tredr G. Hoglmd, "Edom
ies," n Peo?l$ aJthe OldTertane , World (ed. AEred J. Hoerth, cerald L. Matti,gtn and Ed
win M. Yamauchl Grmd Rapids: Bake! 1994) 335-47. Cf. cary v. Smith,lz,i Uent",
Comentffr Ros-Shie, UK: Christian Focus, 1998) 380. Hoglund (p. 3a2) notes1, A. ,Orades
agahst ryom b<me a staodard pdt of the prophetic denuciation of Isrrets ene,ni€s otr
9:25 26 W 9.24-25)., 25.1'/ 26: 19:7-22 Wx 2917--221, Ezek 25.\2 14; 32:29 3\ ioel
1:'l)flltT1:lq].'
9
JAMES'S QUOTATION OF AN{OS 69
raiely used again to speak of Israel in relation to Gentile nations.s Instead
the word rI1 comes to refer to people being brought krto covena;rt
telationship -r,itl God and therefore urrd.t hi. .o-..re"igrrty and rule. ln
Exod 19:5, for instaj:rce, as the Hebtews were brought Jui of Egpt and
Ied to Mt. Siflai to efltei into the Mosaic covenant,-God promi;j them
-'Ilu :hall l:e M1 awn poretion amoog all the peoples, for all the ear.h is
Mine" (ci Deut 7:6; 14:2;26:18).
Intetestingly, the notion of Edom becoming a possessioo is
associated elsewhete with Messiah,s de. In Num 24:17, \r/e xead that,,a
star shall come fordr from Jacob, a scepter shall dse from Ismel.,, In the
very lext verse we are told, ..Edom shall be a possession,,, ald in verse 19
"One ftom Jacob shall have dominioo.,, This leads to the conclusion that
Amos 9:12 may very well have Num 24:17_19 as its refereot. Edom, like
ltle1 latio_ns, will become the possession of Messiah in the aay oi his
dominion. in Psalm 2, a psalm having the Davidic covenant in ,.i.:f Coa
p_romised the One called .,My Son,, that he ..will suely give the ,rutiorr. as
Y-ow inheritaace, and the very ends of th" .urth u. yo,ripos".rriorr.l, Th"
Messiah Son of David will possess the nations in the s.ru. *at t is tirrgly
rule qrill be extended over them.
4. M1 wne it upott them, It Amos 9:72, Edom arid ..all t}re narjoos,,
are possessed, not as hostile enemies bur rarher as those ..uDon whom Mv
name is call-ed." Notice catefi.rlly that the rext does nor say ;*ho call ,rpon
My name."e Ratiet, the exptession is ia the passive ,nV *ffii-rO
""".,
En')g. The rextual combhation of the passive -..rb qp; *ith tfr" ,ro,_
orU
and preposition ty reflects not what one doet btx tather ote,s ,-tatus orf
having a relationship u,ith God, that is, of being God's people.,if";;;; ;
Deut 28:10, for instance, ,.So all the peopt". of f. j,U."";;;;;
"-tt
are called by tie name of rhe LORD.', tn tight of the pr"..dinn ..rri irr
Deur 28:9 r'"fhe LORD q,rll estabtish you ai a holy peopl. ,, I:i_;ll;.
the poinr is rhat lsrael would have a repuration of being God.s oeoole fcf.
2 Cbr 7:141. This was rue. of course. because they" had *l"J-,,\,"
covenant \!.irh ltim (Exod l9:5). This saqre formu.la .irld ulro be apolied
:" -1*1,: *rings like the remple (Cod,s house; ,, ,I. j;-;;
Jerusalem.Lu the point is rhat rhey b?/onged t0 Cod aJld were idendfted s/it}I
Him. [o Isa 63:19. the negatire.is useJ before ,t i, .onr*.ton u. , *r,
of expressing (in lighr of God's disciptiae) rhat ir seemed il;
".;;;
were oot God's covenant people.
3 One possible exception is Obadiah 17-21.
The rulcor enDu,orn',cueo n.. ro: . cansl uinp opn. C\oud. .r. . nNam-Ire l.j j,r, re:rT. ..e.-redd *w" il}*Ii l,h e. AOi ,io u"n,lDpeorr"e .,V o,,r.r-l
tsl-hcrempter.referedroinlKgsS:ar..youfl,meis(,i|]edorerrtx,hou:e
ro:1a0.. ilh .el.cr.j rJy0s:l1x2(.hJ4,hr s!r :rt,5t.: 2n uLmhr. c{,a:Jn-J,.a Ion. ltre:,r 25.r:1.0r . Ds.ren sqe:e Sdr ci ;c.,,l .f l"-.J.;.";;;L,r:.; I(r
70
JOURNAL OF THE E\TANGELICAI THEOLOGIC,{I SOCIETY
In iight of the usage of this passive construcrion in t}le OT, the
point irr Amos 9:12b is that the Gentiles in view are those vrho have the
stanrs of being God't peopk, in covenant relation s/ith the LORD (ust as
those irt Istael had expedenced). Al&ough we caonot coaclude ftom this
that tlre church was ptophesied in Amos 9:12 @ph 31J calls the chuch
a "mystery"-1161 pteviously tevealed), from a NT perspective it is easy to
Iook back to the OT arrd see the chutch in proleptic fonn.
IV. THE LXX TRANSI-ATION OF AMOS 9:11-12
V{hen we come to an examination of the LXX ttanslation of Amos
9:11-12, we discover a rathet interestiag charge in the text. Fot the most
pat! the LXX is a neat-literal renditiofl of the MT, but &e initial line of
vetse 12 teads quite diffetendy. Rathet than "in order that they might
Possess the iemnalt of Edom" (so lff), we find "in otdet that the test of
mankind might seek (the Lord)."tt f6ough the changes irl the text are
not difficult to accouot fot, the more pelplexing iss.;rc is how ot wlry the
L)O( came to have such a different teading. Mclay s,,tites,
\X4rere did this ttanslation come ftom? Is it totall-v due to a theological
pont (k en) that dre tianslaror wished to introduce, or did the
ttanslator misrcad tl,e Voiage (rhe soutce text from rvhich the transla-
tion was made), ot was the souice text for the OG diffetent ftom
what we have ilr the 1\'II? tz
Most scholats today admit that we have rro certain $/ay of knowing how
the LXX came to have this rcading.13 The following chatt helps us to see
a comparison of the two texts rJ/e have.
LXX Translation Hebrew l\ilT
xrir; ri]1"
dvddlrido r,i, qry rirv nEmoruiov h5!ii r'J.r niqn{ o,?N.
xdi dvo,{o6ouido id^d nu.rn6o K6rd oiria ti,9l!n| 'i]l.ql
{di rn xal.4duuavd diris dvd6,idu E,pt l,IrD_rit!
xoi ,ivo, xo6ouiou oiliv ilr')l
kdo;q di iua?dL 1o0 di6bs, ,q,'P r
bi rx n'},'u-nq lriryl pp}"
kdi ndvrd r; iovr, Eiirn-t?r
.p oi/ La,..1t_or'o d,o,ro -ou'-'ou.uu,, Eirt! 'pti x:tplq{
riy.r k6pbq ,i e.oq o nortjv rdord. :n$ nlr- 1., nlnt-E$r.
1' In thc lx)a, d1e objecr of the vetb is not speciEed tl manuscript B (Vaticanus). How
ever, naouscript A (AlexandnouE docs have rhe vords "r;v xip,ov" Ghe t-rd). In the NT
(Acts 15117), rdv (.p,ov is present.
1'zR. 'rimothy Mclay, "The Use of ScriptuJe in the New Testanent," rn Trr Ltue ,/r'
Sep'tdgttt i, Netu Te$dnenl R r.zr, (Gland Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003) 20.
13 I 2m not presumioS L\at thm was only one ffaoslaror behind rhe LXX of Amos. I
vin use the singular "translator," though I realize that the L)C( of Amos could easdy have
b€en the product of multiple scribcs.
9
J-1\IES'S QUOTATION OF AN'IoS 71
. Diferenc* ,rith the MT. Setting aside minor vatiatioos, the
1
differences between these two texts are prirnatily three:ra
(1) MT\ lUl'l (they will possess) appears in LXX as ir(4riior,totv
(they will seet).
(2) MTt n'rxu oirl (the remflalt of Edom) appears in LXX as oi
xor6trorror -riv &v0pc6mov (the rest of mankind).
(3) The patticle ni! in MT Gigfl of the accusative) is not leflected in
LXX \X4:rereas "the ternnant ofEdom" in MI functioned as the object of
the verb "they will possess," "t}le rest of mankind" in LXX functions as
dre subject of the verb "shall seek-"
These tluee changes can be explained. Ir'irst, the Greek verb
ix(q-irlooorv would appear in Hebrew as llr"l'Jl, so that the difference
betweefl "they will possess" 0!rr') and "they will seeli' fu'lll) is slight.
We must keep in mind that the Present Hebtew script ia today's printed
editions (which actually use the squared off Aramaic letters) would appear
differeody than the hand-writteo Hebterv letters used in the post-erilic
period (when the LXX was produced). In many of thc older manuscripts
predating the time of Christ (pdmadty the Dead Sea Sctolls), the text was
flot as clear as we vould wish.ls
rtlt\!
1t
I
Second, &e differeoce in Hebtew betweeo "Edom" ald "maflkind"
is merely that of a single vowel 'Edom" is written Dlln $ith a hobn-oaw),
1r For a completc list of texrual variaats found rn the LXX trr3utoq see DaodeLin
Pft,?hnde, n Se\adg;ntd Vcru Tettanenttn Gruwn A,tai/dt2 Sod*ai! Lifienru1| Coti4qma
(Vol. XiII; ed. Joseph Ziegler; Gdttngcn: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 19.13) 204 5.
15 ve musr also keep in miod that the letter-t / 0) tended to drop down lorver in older
manuscripG th2n e-c scc in today's pinted edrtions, makng the difference betwcen theJ"/
rnd tfe /zlrl much lcss ob ous.
]]. .- . .;IE E\"1.NGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY
t::
=:rijad" is expressed in Hebrew by some form of E.lr-s,he*ter
: iI! 7: (Gefl 7121), oId,I (l\lum 5:6), or in some cases simply o1ry (?s
73:5). When we take into accouot that Hebrew before the time of Christ
was wdtten without the vowel pointing, there would have been very little
difference between Et'tx and D'tx, Furhemore, even the DSS wimess the
fact tlat there was iocoosistent use of the historically lorg vorvels in
manusctipts, meaning that the Vorlage of the MT and LXX did not
necessadly have the t an]'way (tegardless of s'hich word was intended).16
Herice, E]'iR/E'lx might have been uodetstood as ei&er "Edom" ot
"marJ<ind."
Third, the presence of the patticle n;1 in MT (srgn of the accusative)
is flot altogether determinative of the meaning of the text. As it stands, in
ou-r present-day printed editiofls (e.g. BHf, this does indicate that the
following wotds ate the object of t}le verb (reoce, "they shall possess t}le
remnarlt of Edorri). Howevet, the odgnal Vorlage m:ght have had a
ptonominal suffix attached, such as rltx orlnx, vhich rn ould have made
the suffix (N{e or Him) the object, allowirrg dle remainder of the sentence
to be the subject of the verb.ll
2- thessment Taking aI three explarations above into accouflt arid
recognizing the tianslatof of LXX $/ould have wotked with an uopohted
text, he could have legitimately had a text that read (ot he uaderstood the
text to read) EIN n'txr, 'nx 'urtl! jrD), which he would apptoptiately
ttanslate "in order that the rest of maakind might seek Me.,, But since we
have no way of kno$/irig vhat text the I-)(X translatot had before him, we
simply cannot say fot sure. Perhaps he did have a Hebrew text that
tesembled t}le MT, but he may have been influenced to undeistand the
text ifl such a way as to hanaooize it with dre following dangling pkase
o'uir ):r, "and all the Gentiles."l8 Taking E l:n )),1 as a patallel object (,.to
possess all the Genti.les') would be admittedly awkward. Rea-lizing this,
16The 1is presenr m Amos 9:12 cited in NIS x,ru 88 from eunran (in frasmenraiy
r? Amos 9:12 mal be picking up on rhe exhortation for tsmel to ,.seek the Inrd,, mcn
tioned erlie! rn Amos s:4, 6. I!odcal\', rhefl, ccnrles do vhat rsraet was comanded to do.
13 F. F. Btuce vdtes, "In tuning rhe prophetical books from Hebrcv hto creeL rhe
Septuagint tnflslators were qurte readv to confom the rvording to thcir own retigious out-
looloro hen,r.e ro,drp. I o/.rrerprcraronshc\ra,ar.efrcdinrhecr.e.rotrlx.h
they belonged" ("Prophetic Inre+retauo! in the Septuasint,,, BIO_rC.t 12 t19791 17). Jobes
and Silva add, "Since thc Hebreu. presm,ed m the MT is not pafticularh diffictnt. u-c mar.
coosider the possibitit_v thit the l)O{ translato! \'hether or not he rnadc 2 mistake in read-
ing the Hebrev characters was pnmarily motivated by hcrmeneuticat concerns. Etscwheie
in rhe Nfmor Prophets (Hos. 9:6t Aoos 2:1t Ob. 17, 19, 20; Mic. 1:15; Hab. 1t6rzech. g:t)
thc Hebrew vord ul is rcprcsented with kitpovouao (.,to a1hent,,) ot one of us coqnatei.
but .uch a nrderre ma\ hrle apDcared.o rhe rjr'nd"rorie* approf.a-e hcre lRj;en H
Jobes and Mois€s Silva, L"nddax ta lha Sqtuagtu,lcmnd R,pidsi B;k;, 2000J 195). The! so
on to,s'rggst, "Possib\ inspred b) the paraltet coocepr of,aU the nations,, he [L\e translator]
in effect harmoaDed 'Edoo' to the context, an instance of the pan for the whole, that rs,
one pagan nation tepresenting all nationJ, (p. 195).
9
JAMES'S QUOTATION OF AN{OS 73
the LXX translator might have been inlluenced in his thinking by an
eschatological and messiaoic passage such as Isa 11:10: '"|\en h that da)
(El'I Rlnn) the ratiottt (Dl\t) wil rerort to (u,.r'!l) the root of]esse, who will
stand as a signal for tle peoples; and His resd.rrg place will be glodous."
The textual affirides $rith Isa 11:10 are quite sttong (cf. Zech 8:22, "5o
*
many peoples and might:!' atiz s (nl\l) .come to.rrrk the LoRD of hosts
in Jerr-rsalem and to entfeat the favor of the I-oRD').1e
As different as the LXX and MT might seem to us whefl rcading an
English tanslation, the actual diffetences are not neatly so large.
Furthernore when we recognize that the appateflt differences are actually
a -niatt way of reading the Hebtew text, and realizing we do not hawe
access today to tlre Hebrew Vorlage that statds behind eithet the L)ol or
I\,rf, we must conclude that both ttaaslations should be allowed to stand
as possible legitimate renderings ofwhat was otiginally intended.zo
v. JAMES'S QUOTATION OF AMOS 9:11-12 IN ACTS 15
When we come to the text of Acts 15:16-18, it is cleat thatJames is
essentially quoting ftom the L)O( of Amos 9:11-12. Howevet, there ate
nlunefous minot differences betweeo the text of tle I-)(X and the
corresponding portion in the NT. The following chart helps to see botl
simultaaeously:
1' In the case of Zech 8:22, allhough the Hebrew word for "seek" is not dt:i but uP?,
the vords are conceptualy related.
lrFor frrther help io uoderstanding hov early Jewish exegesis beated the biblical text,
see tuchard Baucklaq "Jancs and the Gefltiles (Acts 15.13-21)," ifl Hn rt), Litentuft, Md
Sanet in the Baak aJArb (ed B. \flitheri.gton III; Cambridger Cambridge Universitv Press,
1996) 160 {1. B2uckhm concludes, "The 'misreading' of dr Hebrev text presupposed by
the DO( of Amos 9.12 is quite compmble widr many eraoples of deliberate 'altemative
readings' (di dqra) in the Qurnran pesharin1. Thus there is not the s[ghtest difficuity io sup
poshg that a Jewish Christian exegete, frmilial with the Hebrev text of the Bible but writ g
in Greek, should have welcomed the eregerical potentlal of the IJO( text ofAflos 9-12 2s a
legilibate \ray of reading rhe Hebrev text of rhrt ve$e" (p. 1 61).
7,+ JOURNAL OF THE EV,\NGELIC-\I THEOLOGIC,{I SOCIETY
LXX Translation The NT Text: Acts 15:16-18
L6 und &ird &vq@pfuo
An{ ine inhs! L I tu
dvad"ioo !,i! oxavrlv llP ffioxuiov xqi dvorxoSofioo ilv dKllnv Aqui6 qv n€dokDiqv
Iw ftn tplh.EbsBcLof^ dDulr6u iddnbsfilla,ndl*inrbuildll bbsMd.of DsvidrhdiEbnm
kdi &volxoSoyido td rcrlok6ld dnliiq
kdl !d kqcqqF;ld ditiis dvadido (di !n @.ftdFlrddailriq &vo,xo6oPioo
,idnspGlhd@ddnJdI*inE'up !.di6p.ftl1llffi!dd.y.d]li0dnild
xdi dvoLxoSouri.o qilil! kdi dvope.ioo d,hiv,
xoeds di if dpo roi di6vos, ,n
jud a {ir) ine drys ofold tav KioLov
"ritus iK(rliooow oi KqtdnomL !6v &vep6tu! , 6tus4, i(lqo-orr oi Koro,\orror rLn! alepntuv
in ordE( qrlil t turtiw dd todf t@ev6nid, ti!!I s.l I?-' tr ,{"rh. lsdl h rd.r *Ibddi ltnu. idv !( orfdh F;eli, !i Bigij sI rh. Loi
iO oi)q aL#dnt( !d dvou6 Fou ir'dn!o,iq, irp'ons aLxdxlrFur td 6vouri sou a'citoJq,
lr6yy; al! .x rip; bsc .6d -Ohs.i' qd "6. "n o6L*dr,! tit,d ltq. iEYsL . Krilprdrc (* i.tr o'rl(tn*v lrqhfst,q d r1i€J' wkdfdfid,mir' odroi6rdloi
tt
The most ctucial verse in regard to tlis study is Amos 9:1'2a., atd
tlis case both the LXX and the NT have essentially the same text (i.e
they do not have a statement about Edom as does the MI). Othetwise,
despite rninor vadatioos, dre mote notable differences ate:
(1) LXX werse 11 begns with 'in that day," s'hereas NT verse 16
begins with "aftet these things."
(2) LXX verse 'l'lb, c seems tobe nthapal in the NT to what v'e see
in vetse 16a, b. [Notice that tlle vetb cvorxoSop{or,r in LXX 11c has been
combined with rilv oxqvlv Aaur6 tilv nelrurxuiav in NT 16b.
(3) The phtase xcer)q oi ilpipor ro0 cirivoq in LXX vetses 11-12 ate
onitted in verse 1 6 of the NT. Howevet, a rcmnant of this phrase appeats
in NT verse 18.
(4) The final line of each text is different. The LXX follows the MT
almost identically, but the NT adds yvcoord cn' aiOvoq ('knorvn from of
old).
vi. AN ANALYSIS OF JAMES'S SPEECH AND HIS APPEAL TO
AMOS 9:11-12
L. The Nntetit. Jornes's speech begins in Acts 15:13 with the words
"After they had stopped speaking." The discussioo must have gone on fot
quite some time in light of t}le words ir vetse 7, "Aftet thete had been
much debate." Appatendy marry people had a chance to speak theit mind,
following which Petet spoke, aod then Paul and Barnabas. Yet tlre last to
speak was James, the brother of the Lord Jesus. Although Peter had been
tlre primary apostolic leader oo the day of Pefltecost aod in the ea,ly yeats,
James eventually becarne the tecognized spititual leadet of dle Jerusalem