Talk:Septuagint/Archive 3

Dead Sea Scrolls

Hillarious!

"The discovery of many Biblical fragments in the Dead Sea scrolls that agree with the Masoretic Text rather than the Septuagint proved that many of the variants in Greek were also present in early Semitic manuscripts.[18]

Many of the oldest Biblical fragments among the Dead Sea Scrolls, particularly those in Aramaic, correspond more closely with the LXX than with the Masoretic text (although the majority of these variations are extremely minor, e.g. grammatical changes, spelling differences or missing words, and do not affect the meaning of sentences and paragraphs).[2][19][20] This confirms the scholarly consensus that the LXX represents a separate Hebrew-text tradition from that which was later standardized as the Masoretic text.[2][21]"

So what is it?

Does the Dead sea scrolls agree with the one or the other?

Again, like I wrote above, the reader is left with a very clear impression that a religious agenda is on. I hasten to point out that "source 18", is dead. and the first paragraf is thus unsourced as it is. --Jomsviking (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Some dreadful sourcing in this article. I've done some pruning but I don't have the time or knowledge to do more. Dougweller (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Much better, now the section isn't self-contradictionary.

It's just not only the sourcing it's wrong with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jomsviking (talk • contribs) 15:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

There are some Text differences in the LXX Copies, Codicis Alexandrini versio sub littera A, Codicis Vaticani versio sub littera B, et Codicis Sinaitici versio sub littera S, but very few compared to the number of differences among Hebrew Texts. There are over 6000 places where the MT Hebrew does not match the Samaritan Hebrew Texts. But in most of the cases, there is little overall change in the meaning of the Texts, its just spelling and wording differences. The LXX does match the Samaritan Text in nearly 2000 places where the Samaritan Text differs from the MT, but in many places where they differ, the LXX matches the MT.

These Texts of Deuteronomy in this article, show that the LXX was translated from at least two different Hebrew versions of the Text, and Greek included a translation of both Hebrew Texts, which explains the longer length of the LXX compared to Hebrew Texts.

The New Testament may quote a Hebrew version that was included in the LXX, making the New Testament appear to quote the LXX rather than the MT or another Hebrew Text like the Qumran or the Samaritan Hebrew Text.

JosephLoegering (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

This sentence " the oldest extant complete Hebrew texts date some 600 years later, from the first half of the 10th century" could use a qualifier. It depends on what you mean by "complete texts". If you are talking about the entire Old Testament or MT, then this is true. If you are talking about "texts", which could apply to complete books or even complete sections of books, then this is no longer true since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which has a number of complete Hebrew books that pre-date the LXX. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.103.38.131 (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC) SDK128.103.38.131 (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

"Sections" vz "books" in the Septuagint

@Hijiri88: In October, you added a clearify template to the section background, namely, the following:

Some sections of the Septuagint may show Semiticisms, or idioms and phrases based on Semitic languages like Hebrew and Aramaic. Other{{what|reason=Aren't translations of Daniel and Proverbs included in the Septuagint? No doubt the translation, even the original compositon, of Daniel postdates the translation of the Pentateuch, but...|date=October 2016}} books, such as Daniel and Proverbs, show Greek influence more strongly.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean, but I have a guess. Do we actually read the text qouted here differently? As I read it, it states that some parts of the Septuagints may show semiticisms (i. e., that scolars find the Greek a bit "broken", like if the author was using a Hebrew or Aramaic text, and translating it too much word by word instead of into good Greek). It then states that other parts of the Septuagint, such as the Book of Daniel and the Proverbs, are written in better Greek.

Did you find that the text meant something else? If you just think that "other books" could seem to refer to "other books than the Septuagint" instead of "other Bible books contained in the Septuagint", then this could be clarified quickly, by replacing "Other books" with "Other parts of the Septuagint". Would this be enough for resolving the issue? Or, perhaps you mean something quite different from what I guessed. JoergenB (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Some long-standing poor writing

"The title (Greek: Ἡ μετάφρασις τῶν Ἑβδομήκοντα, lit. "The Translation of the Seventy") and its Roman numeral LXX refer to the legendary seventy Jewish scholars..."
Read precisely, this says that the title is the title of the 70 scholars and "LXX" also refers to those scholars. Both are in fact names of the text, not names for the group of scholars, even though the story of the 70 scholars explains the names. Of course that is the intention, but it isn't what the sentence actually says. I believe that "LXX" should be in the first sentence as it is the uniform scholarly identifier for the text. I'll change that and try to reword the later sentence to say what it is supposed to say. Zero^talk 12:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Septuagint. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110525185517/http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol8No2/HV8N2Juckel.html to http://syrcom.cua.edu/hugoye/vol8no2/HV8N2Juckel.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~hancock/vudown.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040602211822/http://www.scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html to http://www.scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Want to read from the septuagint certain verses of scriptures

Want to read from the septuagint certain verses and scriptures of the bible to see exactly what word was used in Latin. . Tinarsteitzer (talk) 11:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

BCE, CE

What's with the 'BCE' and 'CE' crap? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.59.159 (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Why is it, in your view, called "crap"? The use of CE stands for "Common era" and is used extensively by academia. As for BCE, it too stands for "Before our Common era," and is used extensively by academia. It is an alternative way of saying "A.D." and "B.C."Davidbena (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

... 'often abbreviated as or LXX'...

   The wording 'often abbreviated as or LXX' seems to have somehow lost part of its sytax between "as" and "or". I'd hunt down a reason and what to restore, in the edit history, if I were using a real computer, but this iPad 2 I won't help me get at the otherwise built-in editing-history tools, and I've no confidence of getting to a real one before I kick off this mortal coil. (Even more problematically, I have no confidence that I will remember to fix it myself if I am just being a drama queen about my resilience and memory loss. I should try to make a practice of reviewing my recent edit history when I get to a library, or re-upgrade ... but that only sounds simple.
--Jerzy•t 13:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Reliability and use of sources

Hi all - I have concerns about the use of sources in this article, I would be interested to discuss it further. Sources 4,5,6,9,19,34,35,54 and 56 come from a single source. I don't believe it is an exaggeration to say that the page relies significantly on this source.

Unfortunately due to the poor layout of references in this page, it isn't clear that all of these point to the same source, which contrary to the impression given on the page is actually an Encyclopedia from 1906. I would query why such an important page relies so heavily on an Encyclopedia, and why it is considered a reliable source at all. In my opinion, it would be better if these claims were sourced to more informed references - and I find it hard to accept that the only and best references available for these claims is an old encyclopedia.

Secondly, there is a general problem with the quality and layout of the references. Probably only worth noting in passing for cleanup, but source 21 is a picture of a book cover, 28 is a book review, 31 appears to be a self-published website/blog, 38 is a blog, 42,43,44,45 are not references at all but are themselves unreferenced statements, 51 is not properly formatted, 64 is a statement, 69 appears to be a CV, 77 is a link to an online shop, 78 is not properly formatted,

So - a question - does this page need a cleanup and/or reliability warning template? Is anyone going to defend why a 1906 encyclopedia is the best and most reliable source on the subject? JMWt (talk) 08:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Go ahead and tag the article. For your convenience, I've checked if any material was copied (in addition to just cited to) the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia. Thankfully there was none. That's usually how bad articles begin: as copies of public domain encyclopedias from more than a century ago. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, the refs are a mess. It appears that somebody has already changed a few, as some of the ref numbers in OP are one or two out of whack (in a good way) with the refs as they are today. I've started to do some clean up as well. In order to lump some of the refs under one 'named ref' I've deleted some material form the source that was quoted in the citations. (There are lots of these throughout the refs.) I figure if the material deserves to be quoted, it should be in the article, or perhaps the notes, but not the citation. More to come. Wayne 13:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

So, as an update, I've now done a handful (25 ish) of edits to to the refs. I like to think it's gone from horrendously ghastly to merely appallingly bad. I'm going to take a break from it for a bit, partly to see if my edits to date elicit any explosions of outrage from previous editors. Too rah. Wayne 17:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, no howls of protest so far ... onwards!

@JMWt ... I note that you commented above and tagged the ref's pointing to Jewish Encyclopaedia as "better source needed" I'm not arguing with that, but can you let me know why? As in, what are your particular reservations with it as a source? I get that it is hardly a contemporary piece of work, but then ... neither is the subject matter. All I know about the JE is what I've read in the WP article: Jewish Encyclopaedia, and while it might not be my first choice of bedtime reading, I don't have an immediate aversion to it in the context of this article. There are some citations to the JE that are clearly inappropriate (some I have already culled, some more to go) because the passage cited doesn't support the statement to which is appended, but that's a problem with this article rather than the JE, surely?

There are a number of phrases in the article that I'm troubled by, so I'm going all WP:BOLD on them. Things like "Be that as it may, it is clear ..." send little shivers down my pedantic streak. I'll also do a bit more on the ref's.

Wayne 04:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

(Edit: sorry Finnusertop, I accidentally copy/pasted the wrong user info onto that question, and saved. If you received a notice you can ignore it.)

I refuse to believe that scholarship in this field ended in 1906 (or whatever it is). And, furthermore, I do not accept that an encyclopedia is a valid source for an encyclopedia - this is the way that unsourced information is passed around and becomes accepted truth simply by feeding off each other.

I suspect this source has only been used repeatedly because it is easy to find online. I don't doubt that this information could be found in much more recent secondary sources from reputable academic sources - the problem is not so much the information as the dodgy source, certainly not helped because whoever added the references managed to hide the true origin and age of the sources with bad reference layout.

Finally I'd note that I'm not in a position to do this work myself - I was pointed to a claim in this page that I discovered was dependent on a very old encylopedia, and when I raised this as an issue in other WP fora others agreed it was an issue on such an important WP page. I would like to encourage the wikiprojects and individuals who monitor and maintain this page to prioritise sorting it out. JMWt (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I would also like to say that even with the superhuman levels of cleanup, the references to the Jewish Encyclopedia still do not make it clear that it was written in 1906. This is a major failing. JMWt (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Just wanted to check that there weren't any issues with JE of burning urgency, such that it had to be got rid of immediately. I have no great interest in the subject per se, so I'm not going to go off and spend ages finding a bunch of new citations. It's no big deal to add the year to the existing JE ones, so I'm happy to take that on. I'll probably also do some clean up of the phrasing like the example I cited above, but that's about my lot. As you say, there are Projects dedicated to this stuff, and the page has over 400 'watchers', so there must be interested people who could take it on. Cheers. Wayne 13:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, so I'm done. I've added dates to the JE sources, and tried to haircut some of the fuzzier language. There are still major issues with the article in my opinion, particularly in that is long-winded (hobby horsing) and overly academic (appeal to authority) in tone if not in fact. Some will almost certainly disagree. So it goes. I've "multiple issues" tagged it and I really hope it continues to improve. Peace, out. Wayne 17:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Good work @Wayne aus: and thank you for your efforts. Peace to you too. JMWt (talk) 07:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Imprecise language around similar text

In Septuagint#Differences_from_the_Vulgate_and_the_Masoretic_Text, but also elsewhere in the article, there's imprecise text around translation closeness. Emphasis mine: The text of the Septuagint is generally close to that of the Masoretes and Vulgate. Genesis 4:1–6 'is identical in the Septuagint, Vulgate and the Masoretic Text, and Genesis 4:8 to the end of the chapter is the same. There is only one noticeable difference in that chapter, at 4:7:[citation needed]

This description doesn't make any sense. The Septuagint is literally written in early Koine Greek; the Masoretic text of Genesis is in Biblical Hebrew; the Vulgate is in Latin. They can in no way be “identical.”

Some better descriptions of translation quality or equivalent meaning are needed. "Close literal translation" or "idiomatic translation" or "translation that makes an effort to replicate the meter or wordplay of the source text" would be superior descriptions for different kinds of translations that appear to be based on attempts to faithfully render the same source text.

The point of the Genesis 4:7 example in this “differences” section is obscured by the awkward terminology: the Masoretic text and the Septuagint, for instance, can not correspond to identical (Hebrew) source text, because the meaning that emerges differs substantially between them. Somewhere in the long chains of scribes that brought us each of them, there must have been specific reasons for translating them different, or major mistakes in translation or copying. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 17:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. A translation is always just a translation. Let's say that I write some text in Hebrew, and then I translate my own text myself into Koine Greek. Even if I try to be completely clear and straightforward in my translation, and I am pleased with the result of my effort, a Koine Greek reader/speaker that does not know Hebrew at all may still misunderstand or misrepresent my own translation and my intended meaning. And, the example I am writing about is just simple "human" text that came out of my own mind. But, when it comes to the supposed "word of God," then things get infinitely more complicated, rather impossible. That is because this supposed "word of God" is rather impossible to understand even in the original language it was first written or recorded. It is interesting that you should open this important discussion precisely with Genesis 4, 1-7. This text may have been translated very clearly many times throughout history, but the original, I contend, was never as clearly understood or even used by anyone. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Clarification: What I meant to say is that the original was interpreted innumerable times throughout history, and is still being interpreted. I.e., the supposed "word of God" can only be interpreted by man to begin with. A translation of it is just an interpretation that is built upon an interpretation. warshy ^(¥¥) 18:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

History

The following passage occurs in this section:

"The translation process of the Septuagint and from the Septuagint into other versions can be divided into several stages, during which the translators' social milieu shifted from Hellenistic Judaism to Early Christianity. The translation began during the 3rd century BCE and was completed by 132 BCE."

Question: if the translation was completed in 132 BC, how could a translator have had an early Christian background ? (Pamour (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC))

I don't know to what author/book this material is referenced to, and this would need to be checked, but I don't think one should imagine that "Early Christianity" emerges out of the blue with the appearance of Jesus sometime around the turn of the era. The social background for the emergence of "Early Christianity" was all there already in the Hellenistic Judaism on the late Hasmonean dynasty domination of the area. But also, "Early Christianity" as such, in my view, could never have emerged without the existence of a Greek version/translation of the literature later included in the cannon of the Pentateuch and the Prophets sections of the Bible, and of a major part of the other wisdom and poetry sections (Psalms, Proverbs, etc.). The existence of such a Greek version/translation of the "Bible" was a necessary religious and cultural condition for the emergence of an "Early Christianity," in my view. What I am trying to say, in other words, is that "Early Christianity" is basically one of the streams of Judaism of the Hasmonean/Roman period in the province of Palestine that was constructed and expressed exclusively in the Koine Greek language, not in Hebrew or Aramaic. warshy ^(¥¥) 15:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Certainly not. "Early Christianity" refers to the movement devoted to Christ, not its precursors. Pamour has noticed a genuine problem in the text. I suspect the explanation is that Early Christianity refers to "from the Septuagint into other versions", and the next sentence refers to "translation process of the Septuagint". It is an copy-editing error probably caused by conflicting edits being merged. Zero^talk 15:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

You may be right. I probably should have said "proto-Christianity" instead. What I was trying to say is that both "proto" and "early" Christianities are basically Hasmonean/Roman period "Judaisms" tranlated and/or expressed in Koine Greek. warshy ^(¥¥) 15:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)