Jump to content

Talk:Septuagint

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Composition/Canonical Differences

[edit]

Although the given source https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13432-septuagint#anchor3 says that that LLX “shows at times a peculiar ignorance of Hebrew usage” this source gives no example. The example used in the article עַלְמָה‎ <-> παρθένος appears to me inept, by which I mean wrong (See e.g. https://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/lsj/#eid=82029&context=lsj on semantic range of παρθένος). The source cited for the example (Sweeney 1996) is discussing NT understanding, not the fitness of the Septuagint translation, in the passage cited.

Best fix I can offer is just to remove the example?

Groups of books given in "Textual history"

[edit]

Are the groups of books given in Septuagint § Textual history actually derived from manuscripts of the Septuagint, or are they an editorial addition by Wikipedia editors?

Many other language articles, including the Greek, don't include them, although the English and Russian articles do. However, the Russian and English lists aren't identical and the headings differ. The English list seems to be missing the Book of Odes, for some reason only listing the Prayer of Manasseh, and uses the heading "Wisdom" where the Russian uses "Didactic" (учительные) and "Poetic" (поэтические).

If these headings are in the manuscripts, do the referenced citations support this? If so, this should be made clearer. It would also help to provide the Greek being translated here. If they are not in the manuscripts, then I think they're misleading since they lead the reader to project an anachronistic interpretation onto the list. – Scyrme (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew Forgery

[edit]

It appears that the "historical account" is false, that the text was translated from Hebrew into Greek. Especially, given that the Greek translation is highly specific to the culture of third century Greece; which can be cross referenced with a lexicon. 72 Jewish scribes might be hard pressed to even find a 12-letter word for anything, let alone for an "archi-techton," a director of works in Athens, or a Dionysian commissioner of works, author, contrivor, master-builder or chief-artificer. Indeed, the best Hebrew scribes could offer in this regard was a person's name "Charashim", as vague as Mr. Carmichael. 199.204.39.41 (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That may "appear" to you, but to no-one else. Johnbod (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Dead Sea Scrolls have confirmed that many of the books included in the Septuagint were originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, aligning with the traditional Jewish texts. -- 72.177.105.139 (talk) 72.177.105.139 (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the dead sea scrolls is the younger text there is no confirmation at all.
This article needs to clarify that the oldest written text is in Greek.
Further on there may need to be a clarification that Hebrew was a super dead language (as in no Hebrew texts discovered prior to the Greek) and a very primitive one at that, with a very limited simpleton vocabulary. 95.194.195.104 (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification is necessary

[edit]

This article needs to clarify that: 1) this is the oldest known scripture of the Old Testament 2) there is no hebrew old testament scientifically known prior to this text.

in other words anyone reading this article needs to be informed that the oldest religious scripture is greek. No text superceedes that. 95.194.195.104 (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Septuagint is a translation into Greek of writings in Hebrew, therefore, the writings in Hebrew were created before the writings translated into Greek.--Rafaelosornio (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Date style: CE/AD or BCE/CE

[edit]

It kept on changing. The rule is that a consensus must be reached first. Ready for that?

Pro BCE/CE: It's about a translation of the Hebrew Bible, done by Jews in Hellenistic Egypt, more than two centuries before Jesus' birth. It is of importance as a source for pre-canonical Jewish scripture.

Pro CE/AD: It's the base for the Christian OT of every denomination.

Beyond this, I don't see any major pros or cons. Arminden (talk) 08:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For Judaism-focused topics, the implicit invocation of "Christ" is a more plausible issue here than it is in any other context, so if there is consensus to switch on that basis it would be totally reasonable. I personally think the standard default of the original DATEVAR is fine, though. Remsense ‥  17:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]