Isa 29:3

*Isaiah 29:3 - Duwr is David. The LXX saw both.* I was looking at Isaiah 29:3. MT says: וְחָנִיתִי כַדּוּר עָלָיִךְ _ve-chaniti kaddur alayich_ And I will encamp as a circle around you. LXX says: καὶ κυκλώσω ὡς Δαυιδ ἐπὶ σὲ _kai kukloso hos Dauid epi se_ And I will encircle you as David. Everyone says LXX read Resh as Daleth. דור became דוד. Duwr became David. Simple scribal error. Resh and Daleth look almost identical. Case closed. But wait. Look again. LXX didn't just read David. They also read Duwr. Kukloso - I will encircle - where does that come from? It does not come from Chanah. Chanah חנה means to stoop down, to bend, to settle, to pitch a tent, to encamp. It has nothing to do with a circle. Zero. Encircle comes from Duwr. Duwr means circle, ball, to turn round. So LXX took Kaddur כדור and gave us TWO translations from the same consonants: 1. Duwr = kukloso - I will encircle 2. Duwd = David One Hebrew word translated twice. I don't think they dismissed Chanah. I think they felt encircle demonstrated the idea of Chanah better than encamp. To encamp around a city IS to encircle it. So they kept the sense of Chanah, but used the root Duwr to say it. But their text in front of them - they looked at duwr and they also saw duwd. דור and דוד. In Isaiah 29:1 it already says: קרית חנה דוד - the city where David encamped. So when they get to verse 3, they see Chaniti - I will encamp - Kaddur / Kaddud - like a circle / like David. They put it together: I will encircle as David encamped in verse 1. MT preserves: Encamp + circle LXX preserves: Encircle [from circle] as David [from circle read as David] It is not an error. It is a double reading. They saw both in the same letters. Duwr is David.