The title of this dissertation may seem to be more comprehensive than its contents. If so, this has come about because the scope of the investigation of necessity has been narrowed (or restricted) progressively as the author proceeded in his study. Many points of interest either have been omitted entirely or else have been alluded to very briefly. Some of these are: the intermediary agencies between God and man; phases of the cultic worship; the attitude of the adherents of Judaism toward the kingdoms of Israel and Judah and the surrounding nations; the Hebrew text used by the translators; the exegetical principles of the translators; the relationship to other Jewish writings of the period; the problem of the authorship, date, etc., of the translations; and the type of script found in the translators' documents The subjects and passages which are discussed in this thesis have been chosen from the numerous subjects and passages which the author compiled in making a comparison of the Greek and Aramaic translations, individually, with the Masoretic Text as found in Kittel's Biblia Hebraica. The Aramaic Text used, unless otherwise indicated, is the one found In Lagarde's Prophataa Chalriaica. The Greek text, usually. Is taken from Ziegler' s Duodecim Prophetae, although at times Swete's or Rahlfs' Septuagint are used. The references to Aquila, Theodotion, and Symachus are usually from Ziegler or else from Field's Qrigenls Hexaplorum. Not always have the subjects, and illustrative passages which follow, been discussed in full detail. In many instances an exhaustive investigation of all pertinent passages soon proved to be fruitless because it became apparent that no consistent theological bias could be established. In certain instances, however, all of the appropriate passages are discussed, either because a comprehensive investigation was warranted to establish or disprove the existence of a theological bias on the part of the translator(s) or else in order to illustrate the fruitlessness of such a complete investigation in every instance. A partial, yet fairly complete, list of passages which were considered at one time or another for discussion in this dissertation is found in the Introduction. One more fact should be noted. The determination of possible anti-anthropomorphisms when comparing the Septuagint (or Targum) with the Masoretic Text is very subjective. In many instances this investigator has vacillated in his opinion whether certain translations should be considered as possible anti-anthropomorphisms or not. He also has varied his opinion from time to time as to how fully to treat every anthropomorphic concept discussed in this thesis. The practical limitations of space and this subjective element may have caused this investigator to treat too briefly a given concept or to omit entirely certain passages and anthropomorphic concepts.