Talk:Septuagint/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Fortunately, the "Septuagint" article itself is rather stable, mostly readable, and largely informative, if not extensively referenced. As such, the article, in my opinion, has never benefited from the attention of Wikiprojects but rather from the efforts of individual contributors coordinated only through this talk page. My initial inclination was to consider the accumulation of the WikiProject templates nothing but overtagging. Another editor, however, suggested that an article need not in fact be improved by a Wikiproject for the Wikiproject to merit a template annoucing that it "supports" an article; the announcement of "support," it would seem, merely invites members of the project to participate. The editor specifically asked that one of the templates, up only for a week, be given a chance.

But the other templates were originally introduced over 6 months ago, with no noticeable "support" resulting. (Actually, even the week-old template was originally introduced some time ago.) If these templates are construed by the editor as useful because they invite participation from relevant WikiProjects, then the other ones I recently introduced should be respected as well. There is no policy or guideline I am aware of that invalidates that action merely because I have not chosen a username. 69.203.64.233 00:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed! All these projects are a distraction. Your (dramatic) point is taken and I am removing the templates. This article gets plenty of attention without all the "tagging". Guedalia D'Montenegro 03:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Any body interested? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hebrew versions of the New Testament that have the Tetragrammaton Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetragrammaton in the New Testament (2nd nomination) SV 19:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

At present, we have a comparison of Genesis 4:7 from Brenton's translation of the Septuagint and the Artscroll translation of the Masoretic Text. I think Brenton is a bit dated, and the Artscroll translation, for all its qualities, is not very well known. I think it would be best to use the NETS and NRSV translations here. NRSV is well known and fairly well regarded, and NETS was translated in imitation of the NRSV style; it is natural to compare the two.--VAcharon (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have several objections to the recent change. Mainly, I can't make out what the point is of saying "It is the version of the Hebrew Bible, the

—Hanina —Preceding comment was added at 01:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The List of Books of the LXX is missing "ΩΔΑΙ", after "ΨΑΛΜΟΙ" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.116.40 (talk) 06:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I should explain what I did. Mostly I wanted to take better advantage of style features to get the layout rather than attempt the space things out with   and so on, but I couldn't resist making other changes along the way.

As the foregoing discussion indicates, it's really an error to use "MT" to refer to the Hebrew text as it existed at the time the LXX was made. The third column purported to give titles of the books from the "MT", and where there the LXX had additions that column was naturally blank. Yet the titles weren't really from the MT, but were the usual names of the books from English-language Bibles. We had "Exodus" instead of Shemot, just to use an example where the titles had widely divergent meanings. I therefore tried something else by way of trying to indicate the usual titles in English of the Protestant canon found in most English Bibles, which is identical to the Jewish canon. Yahnatan picked up on the implications of what I actually put there and filled in the missing books. But in that case we ought to be consistent. I left the second column largely as I found it and tried to characterize it with the title I gave it. But I'm starting to think that column really ought to contain a transliteration along with a translation where the usual English name doesn't convey the sense of the Greek, or where the English name is a transliteration whose meaning is lost on the general reader. This need not be done with personal names unless they're startling. (e.g. Joshua -> Jesus) IMO, anyway.

I cut the notes that were at the bottom because I didn't see how they helped. The reader need not be told what LXX stands for if he read the article; MT was eliminated from the table and therefore needed no explanation there; and I couldn't tell what that bit with the Apocrypha was all about.

Just another quibble. Yahnatan marked books in the LXX but not the Hebrew with asterisks in the third column. I suggest either italics or by shading the entire row differently. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I numbered the extra Psalm 151 in Greek although as far as I know it's not commonly referred to that way. However, I could not locate the Greek-language name of the Psalm in any of my references. Hopefully someone can correct that. (Although the title is rather long and may be unwieldy for the table.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The recent flurry of revision to the article has generated several problems without intoducing any improvements. On balance, then, the changes should in my opinion all be reverted.

I hardly would know where to begin except that the very first sentence of the opener is now unacceptable. For one thing, it's false. In spite of the origin of the term LXX, it refers not only to the Torah portion of its Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, but to its version of the entire Tanakh plus apochrypha.

For another thing, the opening sentence is confusing to new readers, who may be surprised to "learn" that LXX is not a bible version as they had always thought, but is merely a Latin name for a Jewish bible translation. This is unhelpful. An encyclopedia article should identify its subject in a meaningful way: e.g. that LXX is the Koine version of the Hebrew Bible. The Jewish origin of this version and Latin etymology of its name were not at all neglected in the intro as it was written before the recent edits, and this information need not muddle the very first sentence.

This raises the broader issues of the nature of the LXX before us today and of the role it has played in various denominations over its long history. The older versions of this intro had a rather balanced assessment, with due weight given to LXX's Jewish origins, to its long history of prominance in Christianity, and to its currency in Orthodox Christianity today. The new version of the intro, on the other hand, reads like a warm-up for the "Jewish uses" section.

All this was accomplished with several instances of original research thrown in. I don't know anything about Kantor, but whatever he claims, the onus is on the Wikipedia editor to justify the very specific date of 246 BCE; and to explain somewhere just how Kantor (or anyone)—as opposed to "modern scholars" (!)—demonstrate that the Letter of Aristeas, or the Talmud, or "traditional Jewish records" get that specific. (They don't).

Then there's the unreferenced explanation of how Christians have ended up with an LXX non-aligned with the MT partly because of their lack of Hebrew knowledge at an early stage. But the (well-referenced) section on MT/LXX divergence later in the article makes it clear that those two issues are unrelated. Anyhow, Qumran and other very old Jewish manuscripts of LXX also diverge from MT, and often in the same way as the received text of LXX.

I could go on and on, but I'll wrap this up. The most inexcusable result of the recent edits is the cut-and-paste method of introducing previously introductory material to other parts of the article. Has this added anything substantial to those sections? No. But even if somehow there was something missing in a specific section that was mentioned in the older version of the intro, this process has rendered the article illiterate. Where the flow of the writing was logical before, it is now interupted with material pasted on without any thought of taking the time to write transitions.

Enough.

חנינא (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well put. --Kraftlos (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

On balance, then, the changes should in my opinion all be reverted. -- I agree. Jheald (talk) 10:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The LXX places Daniel after Ezekiel, orginally...not at the end of the prophets: which was a denigration of the book undertaken when a secondary compilation among Jews was made; thus the book needs to be classified as intended in the version! TheResearchPersona

tooMuchData

12:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

What? The order of the books has no bearing on their importance. Where are you getting this? --Kraftlos (talk) 03:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually academia is what brings this up. The order of the books isn't about their "importance", but rather the ancient orderings found reflect their groupings and classifications, which is also discussed in various ancient works. Anciently Daniel was classfied as a Major Prophet until after about the Fourht Century revolts, and then reclassified Rabbinically. For more information on this you can reference J.'s Antiquities, Florilegium, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible, Daniel By John Joseph Collins, The Book of Daniel" published by BRILL (incidentally you can view the relevant page of that work here at

http://books.google.com/books?id=kvtbNQtMqEUC&pg=PA583&lpg=PA583&dq=book+of+daniel+classified+as+a+prophet+%22It+was+only+after+the+Jewish+revolts+that+the+rabbis+classified+it+among+the+...%22&source=web&ots=7CfGhttmi7&sig=L8oFex4L74J77hgFT0h4Ogb8SRs&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA583,M1

and this work actually cites several of the sources I gave (see the footnotes which refer to them).

Interestingly a rather Odd explanation of Jewish sources for this reclassification is that Daniel's writings weren't for his contemporary audiences, but for only future generations (http://www.jewfaq.org/prophet.htm). Somewhat interesting but far out of step with pre-rabbinical Judaism (which was 4th century onward).

At any rate, modern Jewish classification of Daniel is not what is in view here in this article, but rather the LXX classification of 200 B.C.E. which the scholarly literature affirms the LXX classes as part of the Major prophets (and also indicates that this book was classed as such till the fourth and fifth centuries).

Of further note of interest, it might be of interest to know that the usual Daniel found in editions of the Septuagint is Theodotian's (a kosher Christian considered a heretic) while the original is extant in three manuscripts of the LXX; some of the Greek of Theodotian's Daniel is the same as that in the Christian book of Hebrews, which points to another form of the LXX (or a competitor), which isn't a surprise since where there is a translation, there is often many (and usually a lot of mixture between them).

TheResearchPersona

17:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what you intend to add to the article.

Regarding your first point, Daniel is listed "after Ezekiel" in the article's table. I don't think that "major prophet" is a conventional category in academia or in traditional bible scholarship. If by "major prophet" you mean not a "minor prophet"—usually "minor prophet" only relates to the brevity of the prophet's book (not his stature) and typically includes only the Twelve Minor Prophets (perhaps "minor prophet" can also be applied to prophets-without-books, like Nathan and Gad). By that definition of "major prophet," any book in the prophetic collection that is not one of the Twelve Minor Prophets is among the "major prophets," which would then encompass both Ezekiel and Daniel in the LXX. This is adequately reflected in the article's table, where Ezekiel and Daniel (and Isaiah and Jeremiah) are not included among the "Minor Prophets" subcategory.

The Hebrew classification did not "demote Daniel" as you claim. The position of Daniel in the Writings instead of the Prophets has a rabbinic explanation (which you describe as odd), but this explanation does not describe an earlier phase when Daniel was included in the Hebrew Prophets, rather it addressed the question of why Daniel was not in the Prophets category in the first place. Rabbinic opinion, of course, regards the Book of Daniel as authored by Daniel, and thus a product of the Babylonian exile. (The rabbinic opinion, then, is that Daniel is roughly as old as Ezekiel!) Many secular scholars, on the other hand, regard the Hebrew classification as an accurate reflection of the history of the books. These scholars regard Daniel as a very late book, perhaps even later than Ben Sira. They consider some point or another in the Exilic or early post-Exilic Period to be the cutoff for inclusion in the Prophets, which would mean that Daniel never was included in that Hebrew collection. (The rabbinic viewpoint and this secular one intersect in their [not "odd"] characterization of Daniel as Hebrew apocalyptic literature, as opposed to Hebrew prophetic literature.)

But as you have stated, the Hebrew collection is not the main concern of this article. That's why I don't see what you mean to criticize. The article's table does include Daniel among the Prophets as per the LXX classification, and does not follow the Hebrew scheme.

Regarding your last "note of further interest," this article already mentions the distinction between LXX Daniel and Th. Daniel, and notes that Th. Daniel is the version found in our received LXX. Hanina (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the new definition of LXX in the intro as a "collection of Jewish scripture in Koine" will be confusing to most new readers. While LXX seems to contain some books that were not originally Hebrew, these are in the small minority. The major significance of LXX is as a bible version, in fact it is the version par excellence. Considering its overall character, especially as noteworthy to the casual reader, the old definition in the intro was I think preferrable. —Hanina

I agree. That was a good edit you made, Hanina. Rwflammang (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, wikipedia articles have to make sense to the average reader

Is there any hard evidence that a "Hebrew Bible" (i.e. a collection of Jewish legends in one work) existed prior to the Septuagint at all? Cush (talk) 06:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course. Both the Masoretic and the LXX were taken from earlier earlier manuscripts of the scripture and that is evident from textual analysis between the two. There is also the historical context of translation that the Septiugint was translated for use by Jews living in greece in synagogues that were already present there. You don't have synagogues without the torah. Also keep in mind that no serious academic questions the existence of the scripture prior to the LXX. --Kraftlos (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I see those earlier manuscripts somewhere please? You know, the scrolls/books? It seems to me that Synagogues came into existence only after scripture existed in one work (i.e. after the Septuagint existed) in the 3rd and 2nd century BCE, so scripture could be read in the respective communities. And what evidence is there that these earlier manuscripts were indeed related so that their collection into one work was justified and not an act of literary piracy? Especially in Genesis and Exodus I find numerous stories that seem to be taken out of Mesopotamian and Egyptian sources so as to create Jewish history from what was indeed someone else's history. And then there is of course always the question for the veracity of the narrated contents, due to an almost complete lack of extrabiblical confirmation for the events and circumstances assigned to the Conquest, Judges, and Monarchy periods. Much of it seems to have been made up in later times, especially the Yhvh-worship in the Levant prior to, say, 900 BCE. Cush (talk) 06:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what your point is here (if there is one) but the LXX itself contains Hebraisms which indicate it is a translation from the Hebrew. See, Hebraisms of the Old Greek Version of Genesis by H.S. Gehman in Vetus Testamentum, vol. 3 (1953), Brill. Re-reading your comment it looks more like you are attacking the authenticity of the bible ("Much of it seems to have been made up") rather than the fact that the LXX was a translation of a Hebrew text. This I would think is an innapropriate forum for such argument.Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 05:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, some of the Dead Sea Scrolls date to the 2nd Century BCE. This is not much later than the LXX is traditionally thought to have been "commissioned". As far as I know there is not one shred of evidence which could lead one to thing that the Dead Sea Scrolls were translated from the Greek.Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree, wikipedia is not the place to discuss this. Regarding the dead sea scrolls: they're in hebrew, I've seen them (and no one is saying they're related to the LXX). I'm merely saying that it is aparent to any serious academic in this field that these are translations, this is established through textual cross-analysis with the various surviving manuscripts. If you looked at the writing technology of that day, you would know why no "original" copies have survived, it's amazing that we still have what we have. --Kraftlos (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

But Wikipedia surely is not the place to uncritically present Jewish doctrine as fact either. Absence of evidence is always suspicious when it comes to claims made by religious groups. As it stands the Septuagint is the first collection of Jewish myths into one 'book', and it is not just the translation of one pre-existing Hebrew work. In that sense it is the original Tanakh/Bible/Testament. And if I understand the Wikipedia article on Hebrew Bible correctly, the term rather refers to the Masoretic text, which is a medieval edition and subsequently not a precursor of any biblical texts in ancient times. Cush (talk) 08:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Where in this article is "Jewish doctrine" presented "uncritically?" The article says that the books contained in the Hebrew Bible were translated from Hebrew into Koine, forming the bulk of the Septuagint. There is nothing controversial in that. This information is in fact what defines the Septuagint. The article, furthermore, supports its statements regarding the origins of LXX with extensive references. The translation of LXX from Hebrew is agreed upon by all of the ancient authorities, Jewish and Christian: Philo, Josephus, the Talmud, the Church Fathers, Jerome, and Augustine. Even if LXX was the first appearance of the bible in "one work," it would still be a translation of the books that make up the Hebrew Bible.

But LXX did not appear as "one work" in in the 2nd and 1st centuries BCE, the centuries providing our oldest (fragmented) biblical manuscripts. The oldest complete-LXX codices date only from the 4th and 5th centuries CE! It is absurd to claim that because the original work on LXX dates to the 3rd century BCE, therefore LXX as "one work" is older than the concept of a bible in Hebrew. The source for this early date for LXX is the Letter of Aristeas, which records the translation of the Hebrew Pentateuch into Koine. Letter of Aristeas does not say that the rest books of the bible were at that time made into "one work" in Greek.

LXX is by definition almost entirely a translation of Hebrew scripture. The sources of Hebrew scripture, divine or "literary piracy," are irrelevant to this article. Hanina (talk) 06:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

LXX, is by no definition necessarily a translation of Hebrew scripture that had existed before. The sources are essential, because otherwise it is likely that its contents was made up then and there. Sources are also essential, because it may well be that earlier scripture (Hebrew or other) was not relating to a monotheos Yhvh, but was only altered to fit Judaism when it was incorporated into the LXX. LXX may indeed be the very first Jewish Tanakh/Bible, i.e. a collection of books streamlined to create one more or less coherent work. Until further evidence can be produced, LXX is the same type of scam as, say, the Book of Mormon. Just show me the Hebrew scripture that existed before 300 BCE and that has the same contents. Cush (talk) 10:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This topsy-turvey claim—that LXX→Hebrew Bible—is hollow.

• "LXX, is by no definition necessarily a translation of Hebrew scripture that had existed before." LXX is largely a translation from Hebrew into Koine of all of the books included in the Hebrew Bible (although in some cases, like Esther and Daniel, alternative Hebrew texts were available to the translators as evidenced by the Qumran finds). The earliest references to LXX make this clear: The oldest part of LXX, the Pentateuch, is given a date as early as the 3rd century BCE largely on the strength of Letter of Aristeas, which attests to a pre-existing Hebrew Pentateuch that the 70-or-so scholars translated into Koine.
• "it may well be that earlier scripture (Hebrew or other) was not relating to a monotheos Yhvh."—of no connection whatever to this article.
• "LXX may indeed be the very first Jewish Tanakh/Bible, i.e. a collection of books streamlined to create one more or less coherent work." LXX "may indeed" be the first bible published in one volume—in the 4th century CE—but this is centuries after the very authorities describing the contents of the biblical canon, at the time a library of books, also describe its translation from Hebrew into Koine.
• The origin of the Book of Mormon has no connection at all to this article.
• "Just show me the Hebrew scripture that existed before 300 BCE and that has the same contents." Good luck finding Greek scripture, even fragments, from before 200 BCE, or any ancient authorities describing the translation of LXX into Hebrew. The article demonstrates with much evidence that the Hebrew was translated into Koine from the 3rd to 1st centuries BCE.

There is nothing to this LXX→Hebrew Bible conjecture but an attempt to introduce irrelevent polemics to the talkpage of a decent article. Hanina (talk) 23:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I might be missing something, but why did this page get tagged with an ancient egypt project tag? It doesnt seem to be directly relevant to Egypt. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Presumably, the work of the translators was done in Alexandria of Egypt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.76.158 (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right. Sorry for the stupid question. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This section seems a bit under-sourced. There's one source which is literally an unreferenced Geocities page (ref's 24&25). There's also some wording about passages being undeniably corrupt which seems a bit inaccurate and I'm at a library right now and I'm going to take a look at that book. Since there is some overlap on this book (reference 5) I'm going to check the references on the Jewish use while I'm at it. --Kraftlos (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've read through everything in the main print source for this section and I see no mentin of anything about the Green Orthodox church's use of the septuagint. --Kraftlos (talk) 08:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I put the reference to Würthwein at the end of that paragraph, not as a source for the Orthodox usage, but as a citation for LXX being "an indispensable witness to the text [of the OT], assisting in the emendation of many corrupted passages," see Würthwein p.70, bottom of the page. Regarding Greek Orthodox bibles, I don't think the paragraph's content is controversial. Any respectable print encyclopedia should be adequate to verify the information. Hanina (talk) 03:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to pull the second citation tag then. Could we get individual page references for all the Würthwein text rather than just have the same citation for every place the book is referenced? I still have the book out from the library so I'll try to fill in what I can, unless people think that's unnecessary. --Kraftlos (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that reference anywhere on page 70, or in the other septuigent sections. However, I have a 1957 edition here, and the references says 1995 eidtion. Could you point me to the section heading? Mainly, I'm having problems with the "undeniably corrupt" part. While it may be true that the book talking about certain sections of the masoretic text making no sense and a reference to the LXX helps shed light onto the passage, I don't think the author ever actually said the phrase undeniably corrupt. The phrase sounds a little NPOV as if to say "even they have to admit that the passage is corrupted". I think it could be worded differently. This is why I want to see the actual text. --Kraftlos (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The quote given in my last comment (of 4 May 2008) is pretty much the extent of it, but you can find it in chapter "V. The Septuagint," in the last paragraph of section "9. The Septuagint and the Hebrew Text."

Regarding this article, I don't remember exactly how the sentence in question arrived at its current wording, but I believe it remained stable in its present form for months before I provided the citation. In other words, while no one has until now objected to the sentence as POV, it is true that it is not really a paraphrase of Würthwein, but rather materially supported by Würthwein while using different wording.

Perhaps many would find offensive an assertion that MT as a whole is "undeniably corrupt," and more importantly the evidence runs contrary to that assertion. The sentence in this article, however, merely says that LXX is useful for reconstructing the text of the MT "whenever the latter is. . . undeniably corrupt," i.e. in the occasional circumstance of a highly problematic reading. If the word "undeniably" makes that point too strong, removing it wouldn't ruin the sentence. But it is my opinion that "undeniably" actually softens its criticism of MT; emendation of an MT passage is most warranted when it is undeniably corrupt, and is less indicated when the MT reading may hold up to scrutiny when compared to that of the versions, e.g. cases where MT is the lectio difficilior. Hanina (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for working with me on thisI got the feeling from Wurthwein that it wasn't so much that the passages were corrupt, but just so old that the original meaning of the passage was not clear. Also, I checked that quote out and in my version it says:

Certainly it is an important, indeed indispensable witness to the text. But it is only after careful assessment of its nature, its particular method of translation, and its history, that it may be used for text-critical work. Bertram has rightly said: "The Septuagint belongs more to the history of the Old Testament exegesis than to that of the Old Testament text. It can only be used as a witness to the text if its own understanding of the Old Testament text has first been made clear."

I'm not sure why its different, but it doesn't look like my version says anything about corruption (I wish I had your edition of the book). It makes sense that the reference was added after the wording was in place, however saying that it is useful when M is undeniably corrupt isn't really the same thing as saying LXX is useful to help interpret M when the original intent of M has already been established. The author also asserts that LXX quite possibly was translated from a form very close to M. --Kraftlos (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Under the Christianity section it says:

"The Hebrew text diverges in some passages that Christians hold to prophesy Christ[22]"

I read the entire webpage cited. I can't figure out how that citation is appropriate for that statement. Am I missing something? Apricotgreene (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

See note 3 on that page (the last note) and its reference to Hebrews 10:5-9.חנינא (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

According to H.L. Mencken's book Treatise on the Gods, the Orthodox ironically side with the Jews and Protestants in rejecting the majority of those books not found in the original Hebrew Bible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.99.101 (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Mencken (as usual) may be partly right yet mostly wrong. Roman Catholics, as far as I can tell, are the only communion that has a very clear and definitive

Biblical Canon that has been authoritatively settled in an ecumenical council (Trent). Protestants have a de facto canon supported by various denominational assemblies of varying authority, but they also do not lack for a minority of dissidents who hold for semi-canonical or even full canonical status for the apocrypha. This minority is vanishingly small in the Americas, but is not quite so tiny in Europe. The situation is almost reversed for orthodoxy. There are various councils of regional authorities that have issued statements favorable to a more inclusive canon, bit nothing so definitive as Trent for Roman Catholics. And so they too have dissenters, especially in Russia, who favor a more exclusive canon, although their de facto canon is inclusive. The Syriac churches are a sort of counter-example. Officially, they are quite favorable to a larger canon, but their de facto canon, the actual content of their printed bibles, is often substantially smaller than one might expect. Also of note are the Ethiopic churches. They seem to have two official canons, one of which is quite large by northern standards, and the other of which is larger yet. But I know of no printed bible that actually contains all these books. Rwflammang (talk

) 18:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Over the years this article has grown, and its growth has negagted some of the value of its internal references. The term "three recensions" is used in one place to describe three Jewish translations into Greek and in another to describe three Christian revisions or restorations of the Septuagint. I'm afraid I don't know the nuances of the word "recension", but it seems unlikely to me that the same word should be used to describe both alternatives to the Septuagint and revisions of it. Rwflammang (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

In the numbered list headed "The differences between the LXX and the MT thus fall into four categories," the discussion under number 1 isn't useful. It makes a significant issue of Brenton's choice of "men" rather than "people" as in the Hebrew, and then goes on to identify a Qumran text where "men" indeed occurs in the Hebrew.

Trouble is, this apparent difference is an artifact of translation. Brenton chose "men" because that was an acceptable in his day as a generic reference to multiple persons. The original in fact says ἀνθρώπων -- "anthropon" -- which we would now almost certainly choose to translate "people". See http://www.septuagint.org/LXX/Isaiah/36 Men as in "male persons" would be (I believe) "andras".

I haven't examined the source, but if the source says this then it's a bad analysis on its face, and can't be considered reliable in other ways. 192.91.171.36 (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point - and NETS is in accord with your translation. The example was taken from the source cited (Jinbachian) - and I think the four categories are useful in analyzing translation issues raised by differences between the LXX and MT. While the example from Isaiah appears unreliable in light of your comments, the issue is still interesting -- perhaps we can find a similar variant to use as an example? Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The articles though interesting does seen to lack in providing a helpful list of manuscripts. This article should at least be considered an update containing a list of the ancient documents composing the ancient Septuagint. The list would helpful both to scholars, students, and general public alike. --Anaccuratesource (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Most or many Early christians were jews and to the extend that jews even spoke hebrew in the first, say, 1-2 centuries these "jew-christians" also spoke hebrew.

The septuagint was likely made because many or most jews of the time needed a translated version to able to read the (holy) text. It's clear that if Hebrew had not allready been lost as a spoken lanquage during the hellenic period, it had been replaced as a primary spoken lanquage, and likely only survived as a scholary and later (say fall of W. roman empire) only as a literary lanquage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jomsviking (talk • contribs) 12:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If you are suggesting some changes in the article, we'll need some sources.

talk

) 13:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out the historical errors f.ex. behind the strange "can't speak the lanquage" arguments concerning the cause of differences between the septuagint and later MT texts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jomsviking (talk • contribs) 14:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, see my reply to you above.

talk

) 14:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Could one of the regular contributors to the article expand the Christian Use section to include information on how the Septuagint was used by the NT authors as it seems to have been a notable influence. Taam (talk) 09:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The septuagint is the (early) christian OT. Codex vaticanus f.ex. includes the septuagint.

Accepting the Church claimed origin of the evangelists: Marc, Matthews and John are jews originating in palestine. Luke is likely a diaspora jew, a disciple of Paul the apostol, himself a jew. Peter the apostol is also a jew. They would likely have had access to a, at the time, "modern" hebrew-aramaic tradition besides the 1-3 centuries older Septuagint.

When these people cite the OT/Hebrew bible, they refer to the septuagint or other texts alike to the septuagint [evident by citings of sections missing in MT tradition], which would have been the "hebrew bible" for only-greek speakers (including jews that didn' speak hebrew). But they themselves are, as mentioned, also part of a, at the time, modern jewish tradition. Whether these authors actually spoke hebrew and could read what at the time was considered the hebrew bible, is, to my knowledge, unknown. At this late stage Hebrew as a spoken lanquage was either waining or had allready ended, only to live on as a literary lanquage.

Paul, described as a jewish scholer are likely to have atleast been able to read hebrew. Jesus himself have probably spoken aramaic, though could discuss theology with the jewish priests, which implies that he could at least read hebrew (or the priests also couldn't) else it seems reasonable to argue that Jesus would have been written off in such a discussion by a simple:"Plz: re-read the text in front of you". The known christian gospels are written by jews, but in greek. It's believed that there has been at least one important, but lost, gospels/text in aramaic, maybe written by Mathew the apostol (in which case the current Mathew gospel is probably not written by Mathew the apostol)

I think the interested would be well advised not to think of judaismn or christianity as a constant in time. The septuagint offers a 2-3 cent. BCE snapshoot of judaismn practiced at the time by the jews that translated it. The Qumran scrolls offers a second, later, snapshoot of a religious community of jewish origin. The younger MT texts offeres a third snapshoot of another variant of jewish faith and we known that the Sadducees represented yet another variant. Early Christianity can, likewise, be seen as yet another variant of judaismn, but more radical, resulting in a schisma with the original religion and the formation of a new religion (which btw consider itself as the true continuation of the faith of Abraham and Moses, like I quess that all the other variants also did, they are just not around to make the claim today).

--Jomsviking (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you understand that we would need reliable sources -- see

talk

) 14:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing I wrote above which is (or should be) controversal, so I don't see the need for "sourcing". Point taken about discussing the topic. --91.198.204.69 (talk) 08:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's weird that we need to set up differences between the septuagint and MT (masoretic) texts and not just differences between the septuagint and other versions in general. Again the one-eyed comparison adds, in my oppinion, to the feel one get's that some of the article's authors have a religious agenda. One get's the impression that christians and jews have some unfinsihed business.

F.ex. in the case of genesis 4:7 we could set up the same differences with about all versions of Gen 4:7.

F.ex. the Latin Vulgata, originally a 5th century, christian, translation of then hebrew texts (and thus older than the known masoretic tradition) reads:

4.7: nonne si bene egeris recipies sin autem male statim in foribus peccatum aderit sed sub te erit appetitus eius et tu dominaberis illius

This is, upto minor translation issues, the version that our article identifies as MT (masoretic).

The point being that the version;

"If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it"

is not only "Masoretic" tradition, it's also the christian tradition, atleast from the 5th century and onwards.

The interesting information in this section of the article should have been that there are general differences between the septuagint and later versions of the text (not exactly a new observaton since Origin's Hexapla was about that) pointing not only to bad translation efforts, but to the existance of an alternating jewish text corpus atleast in and around Alexandria in 300BC-100BC as compared to a jewish text corpus from, say, 2nd-4rd century and onwards.--Jomsviking (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I hasten to add that I don't known wheter the articles's claim to the version of Gen 4:7 being masoretic is true at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jomsviking (talk • contribs) 18:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

In the section Uses of the Septuagint, Christian Use.

This claim;

"The Hebrew text diverges in some passages that Christians hold to prophesy Christ"

is indirectly sourced through some "united state's confference of catholic bishops" website.

The issue is Hebrews 10:5-9 that quotes Psalm 40:7-8.

The fancy point in 40:7 is that Hebrews alledgedly "bungles up" by using "body", while the psalms uses "open an ear" or rather to "dig out an ear". The point here being that Hebrews either cite a source, possibly the Septuagint, that used "Body" or the author of Hebrews allow himself some freedom, in order to get his point across, which is that the self-sacrifice of Jesus is the last and only sacrifice needed.

The NETS actually uses "open an ear", I don't know how older/greek septuagints look at this particular point.

Anyway I fail to see the direct link to "hold to prophesy Christ" in 40:7. I would say that whether it's a "body" or an "ear" is fundamentally irrelevant to Ps 40:7 and Heb 10:5 : It's that "obedience is better than sacrifice" that's the point in 40:7 and in the primary use of 40:7 in Hebrew 10:5-9. Though one can say that it gives literary style, that the author in Heb 10:10 can underline the point by stating that the BODY of christ has been sacrificed.

So I quess the author of the claim might think on Ps 40:8 with respect to the prophecy part;

The septuagint (NETS) reads 40:8 as

[Then I said, "Look, I have come; In a scroll of a book it is written of me"]

The New american bible (used by the united state's conference of catholic bishops website.)

Reads Psalm 40:8 as [so I said, "Here I am; your commands for me are written in the scroll.]

And clearly that is somewhat different than the septuagint wording and gives it self less to the alledged prophecy purpose of Hebrews 10.

BUT are we sure about the authority of the "New american bible"?

Several other bibles surport the septuagint version:

New international Version; [Then I said, "Here I am, I have come-- it is written about me in the scroll.]

English Standard version;

[Then I said, "Behold, I have come; in the scroll of the book it is written of me: ]

American standard Version

[Then said I, Lo, I am come; In the roll of the book it is written of me: ]

The danish bible, (which is a quite new bible and is generally regarded as a good version of high academical standard) reads [Da siger jeg: »Se, jeg er kommet – i bogrullen er der skrevet om mig –] Which in my translation is [Then I said: Look, I have come, in the scroll it is written of me]

So it seems to me that it's the new american bible that is different from other (and newer) bibles who at this place surports the septuagint wording, and hence disproves the sourcing of the claim "The Hebrew text diverges in some passages that Christians hold to prophesy Christ" So the claim should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jomsviking (talk • contribs) 13:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

To take it a bit deeper;

The New american bible is to my knowledge based on a original work in 1948,

Older bibles seems to surport The New american bible;

The (older) danish of 1917/1931

[Da sagde jeg: »Se, jeg kommer, i Bogrullen er der givet mig Forskrift*]

something like OT: "Then I said, look I come, in the scroll I have been given command/Prescribtion"

The older Norwegian bible of 1930

[Da sa jeg: Se, jeg kommer; i bokrullen er mig foreskrevet*]

Which is much like the old danish, though I would say that the norwegian text can be interpreted in the way that the scroll "writes of me".

The Older swedish of 1917

[Därför säger jag: »Se, jag kommer; i bokrullen är skrivet vad jag skall göra.]

Which is something like OT: "Then I said: Look, I come; in the scroll it is written what I shall do"

So while I don't have newer norwegian/swedish bibles, the new danish bible have left the old wording and adopted a wording much closer to the septuagint.--Jomsviking (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ancient scholars, however, did not suspect such a possibility. Early Christians—who were largely unfamiliar with Hebrew texts, and were thus only made aware of the differences through the newer Greek versions—tended to dismiss the differences as a product of uninspired translation of the Hebrew in these new versions.

But in the section above (Textual history), we can read that Around CE 235, Origen, a Christian scholar in Alexandria, completed the Hexapla, a comprehensive comparison of the ancient versions and Hebrew text side-by-side in six columns, with diacritical markings.

So we have an (famous and very important) ancient christian scholar, that knew hebrew and not only did suspect that there were differences, but outlined the differences etc. in a scholary work widely accepted in all of christianity of the time.

"Early Christians—who were largely unfamiliar with Hebrew texts,"

Unsourced, unsubstancated claims, easely countered by the fact that many early christians were jews, and thus at least had a possibility of some awareness of the hebrew text from the local synagogue.

The entire except is unsourced bogus, and I will take the liberty to Edit/remove it.--Jomsviking (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I have also taken the liberty to include the Latin Vulgate along side Masoretic text in this section, partly because Masoretic text and the Latin Vulgate tend to have a high degree of similarity in comparison with the Septuagint but also because it removes some of the "Jews versus christian" that I think the earlier wordings provoked.--Jomsviking (talk) 08:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

"Following the Renaissance, a common opinion among some humanists was that the LXX translators bungled the translation from the Hebrew and that the LXX became more corrupt with time. "

That will be: 400 years ago, "some humanists" had an oppinion that the LXX translators bungled the translation from the Hebrew.

That's maybe not wrong, there surely was "some" who had a lot of oppinions about "everything". It's just not very interesting for this article.

"and that the LXX became more corrupt with time" From when to when?

I suggest that we remove this empty talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jomsviking (talk • contribs) 16:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty to edit/remove:

"The Hebrew text diverges in some passages that Christians hold to prophesy Christ[25]"

Of serveral reasons. One is that it's hard to know what is meant with: "The hebrew text". Are these the Masoretic texts? The original texts? The dead sea scrolls? or what?

Another, that the provided sourcing is indirect and weak, since most (at least all I have been able to find) newer bibles have wordings that surport the septuagint wording and not the wording in the specific (older) bible version that the sourcing rest upon. See Discussion:Yet another error or obscurity, for an analysis.--Jomsviking (talk) 07:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed: In addition the Church Fathers tended to accept Philo's account of the LXX's miraculous and inspired origin. Obviously wrong by Origin's example. Also it's not standard Catholic faith to ascribe inspired or Miraculous origin of texts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.49.43.26 (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

In the section on the origins of the Septuagint, I think this text should have at least been mentioned. Atlthough some challenge it's legitamacy -- it is still an ancient text and after all IT NAMES THE AUTHORS(all 72)! From Aristeas we learn that the Septuagint was a gift to Philadelphus from the G-D for FREEING all the hebrew slaves in Egypt -- HE PURCHASED THEM. Moreover made a decree that if any man kept a hebrew slave he would become slave to the one who reported him! Philadelphus sought wisdom. Aristeas provides a detailed account of temple service on the Temple Mount! He also relays the question and answer discussion between Philadelphus and the 6 wise men from the Twelve Tribes of Israel! I Know some question its authenticity, but one must consider all relevant information in order to devlop a reasonable conclusion. It should at least be mentioned. Honestly, I think it's authenticity could be easily verified -- if that table ever existed -- it surely remains to this day. MBJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.237.113.168 (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"The most widely accepted view today is that the original Septuagint provided a reasonably accurate record of an early Hebrew textual variant, now lost, that differed from the lost ancestors of the Masoretic text" now reads "Following the Renaissance, a common opinion among some humanists was that the LXX translators bungled the translation from the Hebrew and that the LXX became more corrupt with time. The most widely accepted view today is that the original Septuagint provided a reasonably accurate record of an early Hebrew textual variant that differed from the ancestor of the Masoretic text" I don't understand the edit summary, and neither version is sourced, so I'd like some clarification here please Thanks.

I think this section is of lower quality and tainted by religious-political considerations.

In the "Jewish use" section, the author(s) put a lot of stress on a-historical and unsourced assumptions on who could speak hebrew and who couldn't. That leaves the reader with a bad impression that the author(s) have a speciffic interest in undermining the legitimacy of certain beliefs/traditions. That's sad because the subsection also contains reasonable points/information. Eventhough it's a bit speculative at some points.

All the speculation on who could speak the hebrew language needs to be removed. It doesn't need to be sourced, because while I am sure that there are a multitude of "internet writers" that have an oppinion on the subject, we simply can't know who spoke hebrew and who didn't speak hebrew 2000 years ago, in a broad sense.

In the "Jewish Use" subsection, the quote from Origen is truncated and taken out of context to lead one to believe he thought the Septuagint was corrupted. That is not the case in the epistle which is the source of the quote, is a defense of those passages found only in the septuagint. The quote was speak of texts where certain hallmarks were missing or certai errors appeared were to be rejected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.203.126.244 (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

In the "Christian Use" section, exactly the same problem appears.

Regard this; "The Hebrew text diverges in some passages that Christians hold to prophesy and the Eastern Orthodox Church still prefers to use the LXX as the basis for translating the Old Testament into other languages"

The first sentence "The hebrew (...) to prophesy Christ", puts the next sentence "and (..) languages" into a certain light;

Which clearly is A) That LXX diverges from "THE hebrew text" (Notice the singularity of "The hebrew text", a subtible way of implying that these are authoriative) at places central to the christian faith. B) Hence those claims are undermined or unfounded. C) Dispite of that the Orthodox Church still uses the LXX, and the conclusion is quite obvious (though left to the reader) That the orthodox church simply lies, and in a broader sense, that christians got something wrong.

The sourcing provided, leads me to think that the underlying argument, is that the Hebrew letter cites parts of the LXX and enterpret these as a prophecy of christ. These parts have a different wording (like much of the septuagint) than other known versions of the psalms. So the statement in it self is not wrong, but it's redundant since the fact that there are differences between the LXX and other versions of "the text" is clearly explained other places in the article. And most importantly taken together with the follow up sentence it's a simple attack on a major belief community.

The sentence; "The Hebrew text diverges in some passages that Christians hold to prophesy" needs to be removed ASAP.

Further more "the Eastern Orthodox Church still prefers to use the LXX as the basis for translating the Old Testament into other languages" it's a relative interesting piece of information

Doesn't that need sourcing? It leaves me with the impression that the orthodox church is disregarding 2000 years of studies of the texts - I doubt that is true.

While we are at it;

Again from the "christian use" section

"Many modern critical translations of the Old Testament, while using the Masoretic text as their basis, consult the Septuagint as well as other versions in an attempt to reconstruct the meaning of the Hebrew text whenever the latter is unclear, undeniably corrupt, or ambiguous."

First of all it has nothing to do with "christian use". Secondly from a scientific point of view, Masoretic texts aren't the basis while "other sources" are "consulted". From a scientific point of view, all sources, including the Masoretic text, LXX, fragments etc etc are consulted and used to piece together the text. Some sources are believed, based on science, to be more or less precise. And ofcourse it's not a prerequisite that Masoretic text needs to be "unclear, undeniably corrupt, or ambiguous" before it's re-constructed.

Again the reader is left with a clear impression that a certain religious agenda is on.--Jomsviking (talk) 09:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The tale in the Talmud given about Ptolemy and the origin and translation of the Septuagint is unlikely. Kazuba (talk) 01:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

In the article about

Actually, chokhmah is a feminine word (link), certainly not undeniably masculine. However, there is absolutely nothing problematic with translating a feminine word in one language as a masculine in another or vice versa. It's very common actually, because the 'gender' of things like wisdom and other non-personal thing is only a grammatical property, not a natural one. Lindert (talk) 07:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The lede has these two statements next to each other:

The translation process was undertaken in stages between the 3rd century BCE and the 1st century CE

and

Although the translation was not completed for some time, it reached completion before 132 BCE.

To my mind, these two directly contradict each other. If the translation was "completed" by 132 BCE (which, according to my understanding of the nature of space-time, was in the 2nd Century BCE), then there couldn't possibly be any other "stages" of translation up until the first century CE. Or am I missing something? Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 09:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll be axing the least-verifiable of the two statements soon. If anyone has any input, speak now. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 05:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I see someone's dealt with it. Thanks! Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 05:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem I have regarding the origin of the "LXX" is its date. I have yet to find any manuscript support for any BC Greek Septuagint which is claimed to be dated as a BC document and quoted by Jesus or the Apostles. The earliest complete extant Greek manuscript is an AD one. What manuscript evidence are you using to establish a 3rd century or even a 2nd century LXX? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.242.102.136 (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no manuscript evidence. The evidence is in quotes and mentions in early texts, e.g., the New Testament, Josephus, and Philo. Rwflammang 18:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

True, there are no BCE codex manuscripts attesting to large tracts of LXX. But there is the Rylands Greek Papyrus 458, with fragments of Greek Bible from apparently Egyptian Jewish provenance (dated mid-2nd century BCE). And Papyrus Fouad (1st or 2nd century BCE) is notable for being entirely in Greek but for the Tetragrammaton, which is written in the Hebrew square script (ketav ashurit or ketav meruba`). And there are more (mentioned in this article with Rahlfs enumeration). Most scholars identify these fragments with the LXX as we know it from later evidence. In any case, they quite literally represent "the Old Greek" and are obviously Jewish/pre-Christian in origin.

—Hanina

Septuagint was written and created in the Middle ages by Jesuitic order- after Josephus Scaliger. There is no evidence that Septuagint is from "BC" era, because oldest Greek manuscript documents are from AD era, so the whole Wikipedian "reliable source"about Septuagint as "BC" artifact is an occult hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.198.67.176 (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The Septuagint was certainly not written in the Middle Ages, we have complete copies from before that. For example, Codex Vaticanus contains the entire Septuagint, and is dated 325-350 AD. The fact that there are no complete manuscripts from before the common era (although there are fragments, as Hanina pointed out) is in no way an indication of a late date. It is very rare for ancient books to be preserved for such a long time. Tacitus is considered today the most reliable of Roman historians; he wrote around 100 AD, and yet the earliest manuscript for his Annals is from the 9th century AD. A similar gap exists for nearly all works of antiquity, in most cases the earliest we have are medieval copies. And besides, Josephus makes mention of a Greek translation, and, significantly, the New Testament books also quote frequently from the Septuagint. This is of course proof that it existed when the New Testament was written. Anyway, with Greek taking over as the dominant language in the region, it is only to be expected that Jews would translate their scriptures into Greek. -- Lindert (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure about that anymore. Quotes could be written already in the Dark Middle Ages, from 10th century AD, when also 1. Pentateuch was written (Codex Leningradensis). Where are results of C-14 radiocarbon about Codex Vaticanus? I became also skeptic around these DSS radiocarbon dating about "BC" era; Some general questions and concerns related to radiocarbon 14C dating of the Scrolls are considered in already published materials [Rodley, 1999]. In the following published materials [Carmi, 2002] is given collected result of the first and second series of radiocarbon dating of the Scrolls. One sample (papyrus sample) has age 1289+/-36 BP (680-775 years AD). The age of the rest of the samples hits interval 2289+/-55 BP (410-210 years BC) 1758+/-36 BP (230-350 years AD). Range of the interval corresponds to the samples of papyrus. If we accept that 7 samples of Scrolls papyrus were dated on the basis of the "ancient-Egyptian standard (template), than their re-falsified radiocarbon dates hits the interval of 1645-1890 years AD (not counting error of re-falsification). The sample of papyrus, which radiocarbon age hits the interval 680-775 years AD could be dated only on the basis of the modern standard (template). Its re-falsified radiocarbon date is 1350 year AD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.198.19.201 (talk) 10:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of radiocarbon dates of some DDS. The article by Carmi gives a list of these, but you should remember that the term Dead Sea Scrolls is used for all manuscripts that have been found around the Dead Sea. Among them are scrolls from various locations and they are not all related. The most famous of the Dead Sea Scrolls (which include the Hebrew Bible manuscripts) were found in caves at Qumran. The very young papyrus you mention was found at a different location (Khirbet Mird) and is totally unrelated to the biblical manuscripts. But most importantly, note that his conclusion is "The extant corpus of dates of the Dead Sea Scrolls is robust and does not indicate a problem with castor oil contamination." In other words, the radiocarbon dates are not being called into question, and even if, note that the issue with castor oil contamination would actually make manuscripts appear younger than they are, not older.

And what do you mean "Quotes could be written already in the Dark Middle Ages"? We have complete copies of the New Testament before the Middle Ages. And the Leningrad Codex is not the oldest Pentateuch, but the oldest complete Hebrew Pentateuch. Partial copies are found in the DDS, and some other fragmentary manuscripts. The oldest quote from the Pentateuch known today is from c. 600 BCE (see Ketef Hinnom).

I don't know what you mean with the 'Egyptian' and 'Modern' standards, but I do know that calibration never changes a 1300 old date into a 650 yo one. That is simply ridiculous. -- Lindert (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The colour usage in the comparison of the Song of Moses is helpful, but attention still has to be made to see where the gaps are, and it may be difficult for people with various forms of colour blindness. I would suggest using a table here, for example:

I would think this layout would be a little more clear about where the gaps are, and which verses are reflected in the different versions. Plus, if someone has colour blindness, this would be easier to follow than using rainbow colours on the text. Thought I would pass this suggestion to you guys for comment on it. — al-Shimoni (talk) 05:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this suggested layout is simple, but effective. Although, being colour blind myself, I can still distinguish the colours used here, I think using position rather than colour makes it easier to read. - Lindert (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyone have objections to replacing the rainbow version with the above one? — al-Shimoni (talk) 09:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Free AudioBook version Link would be useful and needed. I please that one would be given/provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.21.56.80 (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Aaron Raskin is not a reliable source for claims concerning the textual tradition of the Septuagint. And Raskin's claims certainly do not outweigh the scholarly consensus as presented by those associated with the Septuagint-subcommittee of the Göttingen Academy of Humanities and Sciences, which is that "the Septuagint" refers to wide collection of texts, and that even the earliest of these survive in substantial form, and that at places their vorlage even corrects the Masoretic text. There are others problems with the edits too: creating a link in a quote, changing a category to one that doesn't exist, etc. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this good answer in advance to questions arising because of your reverts, which do _not_ improve the existing problems of the article right now! There are problems with this article, which caused me to try to improve it! Would you mind to help me please?

I would say the max-problem is, that there is no proper separation between the jewish and the christian traditions concerning the so called septuaginta! Mentioning the Göttingen Academy of Humanities and Sciences, a secular-christian institution, you of cause point to a huge gap of problems in interpretation of Tora, and stick the finger into a wound. This Göttingen Academy is obedient to the modern christian theological research, not to the original of the septuagin, which was done by rabbanim in a sphere of their control, under which they later did retract it because of false translations, false interpretations, false enlargements and problems with the new pagan-christian religion. You have talmud as a source and rabbanim of today saying of the other side of the holistic truth concerning the so called septuagint: Look at your statement: "Aaron Raskin is not a reliable source for claims concerning the textual tradition of the Septuagint." It is not false but half right. And we have learned, that a half-truth is an entire lie! His oppinion is representing also kind of a rabbinical consensus - but you do not like. Why not mentioning this other side? Please would you mind to help close the gap and improve this article - especial concerning the beginnings and the end of jewish support, leaving the so called septuagint of today an almost exclusive christian corpus? I beg you! It was better once, when it adressed this problems, but over time the half-true secular-christian interpretation has become more prominent again. --5.28.127.242 (talk) 11:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

If I had had time, I surely would have not used chabad-rabbi alone! Please see this was out of my convenience and of availability of texts.. I admit --5.28.127.242 (talk) 11:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I would contest the view that the Septuagint committee of the Göttingen Academy is obedient to any aspect of theological research. What is your evidence of this? Their activities are done on the basis of their methods of textual criticism, and that is all.

O.K. --5.28.127.242 (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

But this does not matter: The Göttingen Unternehmen is the only group of scholars developing a critical text of the Septuagint. And that the Septuagint is basically as the Göttingen Unternehmen claims, is agreed by all serious scholars, whether Christian, Atheist, Jewish, or undescribed. Emanuel Tov, and previously Moshe Goshen-Gottstein, and others with the Hebrew University Bible Project agree. Robert Hendel and others with the Oxford Hebrew Bible project agree. Richard D. Weis and others with the Biblia Hebraica Quinta project agree. These are the only groups of scholars who are developing critical texts of the Torah and other Hebrew scriptures. None of these people or groups are beholden to any theological position in their work. I would suggest: try and see if you can find just one textual critic employed at an accredited institution who says that the original Septuagint is almost totally lost or denies that the Septuagint corrects the Masoretic text at places, or that "Septuagint" does not refer to those texts which those at the Göttingen Academy say it does. Then, were you able find four whole groups of such scholars from the world over who are each developing independent versions of these texts, you would have found an equal to the actual consensus position. But you cannot find such an equal because nothing even close to it exists, and it would be difficult to find even just that one scholar.

O.K. Well established say, thank you for helping me understand. I would say, you might missed my point. With my edit I tried to show, that there should be an information on the very old discarded Jewish (relgious) use VS the Christian (religious) use-til-today of the LXX and the stakes involved, that are covered by the (xtian) term LXX. Today, LXX is a Christian text-in-use, and a Jewish text-in-scrap, besides it's reasonable use as an object of theological (mostly xtian) textual critic research. But yes you are right, but that was not my point (can clearly be seen in my edit) --5.28.127.242 (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with presenting rabbinical consensus on this page. Please describe what it is and include reliable sources documenting it. However, removing the consensus position of scholars who are trained, credentialed, and employed as historians and textual critics of these matters is destructive to this Wikipedia. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

O.K. But I am not sure if I did remove any consensus position of scholars who are trained, credentialed, and employed as historians and textual critics. Again, I tried to put into the article information with an other aproach: rabbinic, jewish, religious testifications - they should basically also have the same rights to be published as historians and textual critics! --5.28.127.242 (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Here are the exact problems with the most recent edits: No source given says that the Septuagint is an interpretational rabbinic translation or the like. No reliable source says that the Septuagint (whether limited in scope to just the Penteteuch or not) is almost totally lost. No source given says that the Septuagint had become rendered un-Sacred Scripture by Jews because of its divergence from the original Jewish Bible. No source given says that the Masoretic text is the original Jewish Bible. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

O.K. But you are not right with that: "No source given says that the Septuagint is an interpretational rabbinic translation or the like" whence my cited source (chabad exactly says so - pls. read it. Besides, any translation is -inherently- an interpretation ;) But, o.k. I would express it in a less confrontational way next attempt. --5.28.127.242 (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

"No source given says that the Septuagint had become rendered un-Sacred Scripture by Jews because of its divergence from the original Jewish Bible.": As so far I only have one german reliable source _exacly_ stating, what you claimed might be stated without source. - See that is what I tried to fix in this article, exactly this information is lacking in the article at all. All the historians, (Xtian) textual critics and Xtian religious people are concerned with the LXX and use it, while on jewish side almost no interest exists and absolutely no use of the LXX can be found. - This is just missing in the article, leading to the false information, the LXX would have been a forrunner of the tanakh. --5.28.127.242 (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

"No source given says that the Masoretic text is the original Jewish Bible.": It is obvious fact, that Masoretic is only text-in-use as the original/authentic Bible. No statements of originality were intended - this would be a different subject. Thanks again --5.28.127.242 (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

First: If you disagree and have content that you want to add, please do so. I certainly don't own the article. If I remove your content, it will be for the reasons I state here; you have just as much right to edit the article as I do.

Second: If you have German sources, you may very well use these. German reliable sources are still reliable sources. And I would think a good number of editors here have a basic reading-knowledge of German, so we as a community are able to judge any edits.

The Chabad source says that it is a translation, but not that it is an "interpretational" nor a "rabbinic" translation. It's true that every translation is an interpretation in a sense, but when you explicitly call one "interpretational" this can imply that it is somehow idiomatic. If the source does not say that, then there is no reason to include it. Similarly for "rabbinic". What evidence is there that the translators were "rabbis"? Obviously in a loose sense they were rabbis, but you need a reliable source explicitly saying that they were rabbis, otherwise this is just us inserting our own interpretation rather than that of the reliable sources. So you're left with saying that the Septuagint is a translation. But the article already is clear that the Septuagint is a translation; that's in the very first sentence of the article.

You state that no statements of originality were intended. But what do you mean? In your addition you said: "because of its divergence from the original Jewish Bible (afterward called the Masoretic)" That is stating that the Masoretic Text is the original. What I am saying is that the consensus position of scholars is that the Masoretic Text is not the original. You say it is obvious. But all those authors just mentioned (Goshen-Gottstein, Tov, Hendel, Weis) say that it is not the original. I don't see any reliable sources saying that the Masoretic Text is the original. You may see that in the "Jewish Use" section the article says something similar already: "LXX began to lose Jewish sanction after differences between it and contemporary Hebrew scriptures were discovered". Does that capture what you mean? Notice that it doesn't imply that the Masoretic is original.

If you think the article anywhere implies that the Septuagint is a forerunner of the tanakh, then please edit it wherever you think it is appropriate in order to correct this implication. No one should want to imply that anywhere. The Septuagint is (mainly) a translation of the Hebrew scriptures, and no book of the Septuagint in its entirety, or even its lost vorlage, represents wholly the original Hebrew. This article should certainly not imply that.

We can add these two sentences to the lead: "Jews began to abandon the Septuagint in the 2nd-century CE. Modern rabbinical Judaism uses the Masoretic Text as scripture." We can also findDoes this help address your concerns? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 01:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Since people are editing this right now, let me suggest rewording this section.

Right now it reads:

In time the LXX became synonymous with the "Greek Old Testament", i.e. a Christian canon of writings which incorporated all the books of the Hebrew canon, along with additional texts. The

Protestant

churches usually do not.

This is misleading and poorly worded. First, it seems to imply that the Vulgate is a translation of "most of the books" of the Septuagint. Second, it neglects to treat generally of the Biblical canon of the Roman Catholic Church, but rather mentions only speak of canon as it applies to the Vulgate (this is like saying in the article evolution that "natural selection is the only known cause of adaptation among mammals", when the same is true for all organisms). Last, it seems to be saying that the canon for most Protestant churches excludes most of the books of the Septuagint, when what is meant is that it excludes most of the otherwise "additional texts". I suggest instead writing:

In time the LXX became synonymous with the "Greek Old Testament", i.e., a Christian canon of writings which incorporated all the books of the Hebrew canon, along with additional texts. The canons of the

Protestant churches exclude most of these additional texts.^[1]

--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 01:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

"Instead, Jews used Hebrew/Aramaic Targum manuscripts later compiled by the Masoretes; and authoritative Aramaic translations, such as those of Onkelos and Rabbi Yonathan ben Uziel." — This is chronologically confused, since the Masoretes (but usual scholarly terminology) didn't come onto the scene until centuries after the Aramaic targums. Zero^talk 10:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Considering that the characters of the Hebrew alphabet have numerical values and that in Hebrew the names of all the books that are divided in 2 in both English and Hebrew are typically written with aleph and bet signifying 1 and 2, it might be clearer to just say "Esdras 1" and "Esdras 2". Flipping Mackerel (talk) 02:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It is true that A and B are used as numbers here (though the Septuagint used the Greek letters alpha and beta of course). To say Esdras 1 and Esdras 2 however, would be quite confusing. See Esdras: the Septuagint book 'Esdras A' is variously called 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras or 3 Esdras, the Septuagint book 'Esdras B' is equivalent to the English titles Ezra and Nehemiah, also called 1+2 Esdras. - Lindert (talk) 10:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh! Thank you, very illuminating. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

And the modern 2 Esdras found in the Hebrew or OT Apocrypha is not in the LXX. Correct? Maybe a minor point but should be clarified in the article. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

See the usage for Common Era for an explanation of BCE and CE's appropriateness in this article. SV 19:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

'anonymous user 79.223.22.188' continues to revert Septuagint CE and BCE listings, through way back in 2007 we had agreed to use BC and BCE in this article.

Can that addressed by blocked from reverting the pursuit of policy in this article? MaynardClark (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I found this article to have an inconsistent use of era and era style. Kindly carefully compare revisions. Some sentences used AD/BC notation, others CE/BCE. There were also instances of the abbreviation "B.C." with periods in contravention of house style. The original article was written in AD/BC, so I have made this article consistent with the original. There was no consensus in 2007 about changing era on this article, rather an anonymous user unilaterally [changed] it, and another user, SerialVerb (no longer active), [undid a reversion] using the rationalization:

BCE is the modern way of saying BC, Pagans, Budhists, Jews and Humanists are not so interested in when Christian Tradition says Christ arrived. CE is Common Era, BCE is Before the Common Era.

This was arbitrary and non-consensual in violation of WP:ERA. 79.223.22.188 (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The parts that use B.C. with periods are quotes.Dosbears (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The first paragraph has this statement: " As the primary Greek translation of the Old Testament, it is also called the Greek Old Testament (Ἡ μετάφρασις τῶν Ἑβδομήκοντα)." The parenthesis indicates that it is giving the Greek equivalent of "The Greek Old Testament," but it is not. "The Metaphrasis of the Seventy" is not equivalent to "The Greek Old Testament" in meaning. Did the writer mean to say that As the primary Greek translation of the Old Testament, it is also called both "the Greek Old Testament" and Ἡ μετάφρασις τῶν Ἑβδομήκοντα ??? Or was meant something like this: "The Septuagint (Ἡ μετάφρασις τῶν Ἑβδομήκοντα) is also called "The Greek Old Testament" as a neutral term deliberately avoiding the claim that the present Greek Old Testament is an accurate transmission of the LXX, which may in fact be lost in history." (EnochBethany (talk) 05:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC))

The section that "Disputes over canonicity" second para graph should be broken up. One part should discuss what are the newer books (listing all) and a new paragraph discussing the books written only in Greek should be added. The combining of the two can be confusing. Rinkevichjm (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

There is the statement alleging how Paul quotes the LXX. Actually there is apparently no proof of that nor of what other NT document quotes the LXX. The reason is simple: Our LXX is post NT (aside from a few fragments). So it is hard to prove when the NT quotes the LXX and when our so-called LXX has incorporated NT readings, where the NT renders the Hebrew into Greek directly. Moreover, quoting the Jewish Encyclopedia is not to quote a reliable source on this, as the polemics involved are very hot. These claims should be deleted as they stand for NPOV and for non-reliable source. On such questions of Biblical criticism, everything is debated. So you can probably find some professor from some university agreeing that Paul quotes the LXX, but really no such source will be reliable. For the fact is that our so-called LXX is a Greek OT, not a reliable copy of the actual LXX. (EnochBethany (talk) 05:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC))

Why do you say this? Can you cite a single scholar who says our LXX came into being AD times and not ~250 BC? If you can not then stop making false accusations against the LXX, Bruce Meztger in his book 'The bible in translation' says 'When the NT authors quote from the OT they almost always use the septuagint' (i cant remember his exact wording but it is close to that)Sellingstuff (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC) 01:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure whether EB understands that the LXX is a Koine Greek translation of the Hebrew bible. And that since the church of Christianity began in the Hellenic world (among Koine Greek speakers such as Paul and the other not-necessarilly-jewish NT writers), it would take exceptional evidence to argue they did not default to using the LXX for their scriptures. Cesiumfrog (talk) 08:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120112143310/http://www.newjewishbooks.org/ITB to http://www.newjewishbooks.org/ITB

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —

Doesn't go here. If there were a single well-sourced version people should use but might not, yup, we should have it. If there are 4 unsourced variants that cover most of what people would come up with on their own seeing it for the first time, it's not adding anything, isn't helpful in the least, and goes to the

At Septuagint#Table of books, there is a table of books which has a column for Greek names, Greek-based names, and conventional English names. For example, the book known in English as the Book of Numbers is given as Ἀριθμοί, or the Greek-based name "Arithmoí". However, the books known in English as the Books of Samuel and the Books of Kings are listed as Βασιλειῶν Αʹ, Βʹ, Γʹ, and Δʹ, but with the Greek-based names of I, II, III, and IV "Reigns". Why is "Arithmoí" used as a Greek-based name instead of its English translation "Numbers", while "Reigns" is used as a Greek-based name instead of the Greek transliteration "Basileion"?

It seems to me that we would want to use either "Numbers" and "Reigns", or "Arithmoí" and "Basileion", but not one name from each of those pairs. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

William Whiston translates Josephus and in his notes labels the Septuagint as LXXII which means 72. This is derived from Sept for 70 and Tua for 2. How accurate is this of 72 men not 70. Consider that 7th dynasty Egypt according to Manetho was 70 days ruled by 70 kings at Memphis. The star Sothis vanishes for 70 days there from May 8 to July 17 whether you believe Egyptian 2770bc (year 320) or Masoretic 2030bc (year 340) or Seder Olam 2033bc (year 72). And Richard Parker (Chicago Oriental Institute) verifies astronomy is still July 17 in 1872bc (not July 18 until 1314bc and not July 20 139AD though record says July 21). For 4000 years the absence however remains 70 days for Memphis though shifting forward 3 days. However, the Septuagint Genesis was written at Alexandria where one degree of 69 miles north is now 72 days from May 7 to July 18 (as it is also 72 and the same dates at the city Ur). Why would they choose 70 men for a 72-day star? And William Whiston knows this. Jerusalem is 74 days.75.86.172.174 (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Before i reply to this forum. I want to say it is like one single gust of wind that knocks a stand over. But everyone there seeing it demands years be spent to prove the wind did it, how fast the wind, how heavy the stand. The following answer is not conjecture. It is someone (me) who got tired of the farce that truth needs to be proven 100 times.

The LXXII tradition is 280bc. This figure fits astrology countdown calendars to the end of old world and start of new world. In Egyptian calendar it is 1460 years from Halloween on Egyptian date Thoth 1 new year in 1738bc to Halloween returns 365 leap days later to Thoth 1 new year in 280bc. These calendars have been ignored. For example though written in Greek, and ruled by Greeks, the translating was done in Egypt at Alexandria. BUT Egyptian timeline begins 130 years before Greek because Egyptian has a 130-year Canain and Greek 2958bc Flood does not. Thus before scoffing at various Flood years 3090bc or 2958bc, this Thoth new year fact exists as returned to November 1 for All Saints Day. Thoth Halloween 1738bc does not force you to accept it as Pharaoh's dream who makes Joseph king, and crumbles the 12th dynasty in 7 years. It still returns in 280bc and Septuagaint is then written.

Even the fact that Manetho says 7th dynasty was 70 kings for 70 days (May 8 to July 17), the same easily apples to Alexandria if we believe the 72 men (Whilliam Whiston LXXII) spent 72 days at Alexandria to do this. Thus not just in 280bc but 72 days from May 9 to July 20 (Alexandria Sothis having shifted two days since its ancient May 7 to July 18).

Next, there is also the 312-year (thrice is 936-year) of 584-day Venus and 780-day Mars and 12-year Chinese calendar, and 360-day calendar. From 280bc it goes back to 3088bc as either Flood or Arpaxad as Adam's 2256am so that 280bc begins the 4th and LAST 936 years of 3744. This is Egyptian (not Greek). Existence of this 312 is not just Mayans, but that 312 became out of sync in 936bc by shifting Exodus dynasty from 1513bc back to 1560bc, having shifted 12th dynasty from 1943bc back to 1991bc (Richard Parker, Chicago Oriental Institute). I have found this to be due to Ur's 48-year king Shulgi while Abram had a 2nd home in Harran Syria. (Then 312 years 936-624bc.) In 624bc NeoBabylon's 21-year Nabopolassar honored 1000-year Amizaduga's death (and the year is debated as father Nabopolassar or son Nebuchadnezzar). BUT this 624bc furthered the 312-year count to Seleucus 312bc and also three Persian Magi Median priests, and Constantine (312AD). Yes, 624bc to 312AD is not 936 years, 312bc to 312AD is not 624 years. Obviously, whether Seleucus or Constantine were on the same cycle is debateable, or it is our doing if they were. THE POINT is that timeline cycles and countdowns to end world or bring new world were honored and LXX 280bc is one of them. 75.86.172.174 (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)