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. |
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)
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)
@Hijiri88: In October, you added a clearify template to the section background, namely, the following:
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)
"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. Zerotalk 12:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
What's with the 'BCE' and 'CE' crap? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.59.159 (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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))