It’s doesn’t really matter if the ambiguity remained in the translation if the interpretation picked a lane though, does it? I didn’t read the article. But people conflate translation and interpretation all the time. If Paul was using the translation in an argument, you can make assertions about how he interpreted and Greek speakers of the time interpreted it. Of course context doesn’t demand one interpretation, that’s why there is debate about ambiguity in the first place. Making an argument for one way over another is just how scholarship is done. You don’t get publlished for saying the same thing everyone else has said. But you also don’t get published for saying things that are totally implausible. I don’t think the whole point of the exercise was to “look for errors of translation in the LXX.” I think it was to offer further support to challenges to the traditional Reformed view of justification, something many people have already done, with a full catalogue of arguments, not a single verse.
No thanks, people have written whole books on it. There is a rather long thread from a while back on the forum. Orality in the ancient world is understudied, but it’s a broad topic you are welcome to read up on. People were generally not literate in the way we post-Gutenberg moderns think of it. I certainly don’t have time to give a class, and it would derail the discussion here. It’s just always good to keep in mind that the ancients were usually not referencing written texts in their teaching or writing, they were referencing texts that they had encountered first by listening and could recite orally. And many authors of NT texts used scribes to “write” and their texts were read aloud and explained orally by someone who had the text taught to them first.