Talk:Septuagint/Archive 1

When I was 14 and had finished a year of Latin language my father gave me Winne Ille Pu, a Latin translation of the A. A. Milne work. The map in the front had an arrow pointing to "VII Polus." Now I knew that was the 'North Pole' from having read Pooh more than a few times in earlier years, but even as a future-know-it-all-Ph.D.-holder I didn't know that the word in Latin for "North" is Septentrionalis, which current-know-it-all members of Western Civilization have often abbreviated with the Roman numeral VII because the first two syllables of "North" are ALMOST "Seven," or Septem. See? It's a pun. Once I understood it, I thought it was funny. On the other hand, like most puns, it can exclude the general reader who doesn't know a couple of extra languages. Hence (yes, there's a point to this rant) my opposition to using multilingual puns depending on insider knowledge in sources for the general reader. By the way, I went on to major in classics in college and teach Latin during grad school, so I am, to put it mildly, an elitist. On the other hand, I'm also a *polite* elitist (ask J H K!) who prefers not to exclude people pointlessly. --MichaelTinkler

Why do you say that it's a "tri-lingual identification", though? What are the three languages? I see only one. --AV

In the identification there are two: greek and latin. The third probably came in Michael's mind as hebrew, the septuaginta beeing a translation.

Yep. We're writing in English, so that's one. Septuaginta is Latin, that's two. Whoops! I guess I mean bi-lingual, though the actual 70 is a Greek number not even represented here, so maybe that counts for 3. (I can't remember greek numbers that high this late at night and so far from a dictionary!). Not to mention the whole legend (or history) of who the 70 were and the further legend(whose source I can't remember) that the 70 worked separately and produced identical, miraculous translations. --MichaelTinkler

Still, the word itself is in one language - Latin; the fact that we're writing in English is irrelevant, since it's called Septuagint in all other languages as well, it's a direct borrowing from Latin. There's no trace of the original Greek name in the word (was there an origial Greek name? Perhaps they called it Septuagint directly in Latin, long after its appearance, based on the legend of 70 translators? I don't recall) or of any Hebrew. But I guess I'm being pedantic --AV

well, in fact, there are two languages. No one I know (and I have an undergraduate degree in Latin and used to teach it) goes around looking at Roman numerals in an English langugae context and reads them out loud as Latin words. I'm not sure what the Greek name was (hepta-something-or-other - I'm not finding it in my abridged Liddell and Scott).

Septentrionalis means the direction towards the septentriones, the seven stars that make up the big dipper. So the link isn't a pun, definitely not a mutlilingual pun, but rather an etymological abbreviation. Maybe you knew this already, but better safe than sorry. Btw, Latin translations of existing books are very neat.

whatever it is, I think it's one of those facts that are more annoying than interesting -- it's just a little anorak-y for my tase...JHK

Well, here's a dumb question. Did the Romans use this abbreviation? English isn't actually a part of it, and septentrionalis is a bit too long to write on a map. If so, then it can't really be considered any more exclusive than using the Latin in the first place, since it is just the equivalent of marking N-S-E-W. I suppose this is somewhat irrelevant to the case at hand, though, since there is no reason to write LXX for septuagint and we are supposed to be using English.

Oldest translation?

It is the oldest translation of the Bible

I do not believe that is factual. It is my understanding that the Aramaic Targums form at least one older translation. Perhaps the intended meaning is that it is the oldest complete translation? (Even then I am not sure.) Jdavidb 14:29, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The extant Targums are later than the extant mss for LXX. Though the Targums are based on older sources and show elements of exegesis which are much earlier than the date of the final composition, it is still true that LXX is older. Sleeping Turtle

WikiProject

Based on a suggestion in Wikipedia:Pages needing attention, I have started the skeleton of a WikiProject to try to cut down on the overlap between the various presentations of the canon. I think that a lot of people working here will want input on this. Feel free! Mpolo 13:27, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

LXX is not a translation from MT

I guess the information on this page is mostly from an older source. The theory that LXX was originally translated from MT then underwent independent change is disproved by the fact that many Hebrew fragments found at Qumran match LXX rather than MT. This doesn't prove that LXX didn't have later changes, but it proves that the original Hebrew source of LXX was at least in part a different textual stream from MT. Anyone with good access to information on this, please edit the article. --Zero 11:55, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

LXX did not translate from MT as MT didn't exist until centuries later. However, there are large parts of the LXX which used a text which was in most important respects the same as the MT (called the proto-MT). Books where LXX fits more closely with DSS than with MT are Jeremiah and Samuel. Sleeping Turtle

The Dead Sea Scrolls also contain text which translated also matches LXX.

Ptolemy II was not an Egyptian pharoah, but a Greek King

As were all the Ptolemies. Cleopatra was the last Ptolemy, and allegedly the only one even to learn the Egyptian language.

The Greek Used In the LXX is not Koine Greek

I believe that the LXX Greek is a more difficult Greek than Koine Greek. It is closer to Classical Greek. I think Koine Greek was isolated to the NT Bible not the OT. I have done Koine Biblical Greek at university level and I believe that it is wrong to say that the LXX was written in Koine Greek. Please if you have more information on this share it.--203.59.46.254 16:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Work remains to be done to establish whether the LXX is actually based on Koine Greek, Doric Greek or Attic Greek. But these distinctions in Greek dialects are likely to be lost on those looking for a standard preliminary work on the Septuagint.

For those who have concerns about this page, I can be reached (for the record) at theophane1054@yahoo.com.

(P.S - I left the article - as is for now - while waiting for potential input from others. I will be editing and professionalizing this article in about one week (when I will take some of the questions out of the article).

LXX is in koine greek. There was a range of different styles within Koine and the LXX is (predominantly) a translation which accounts for some of its oddities. Some books have a tendancy to Atticise the greek (make it sound more Attic). Sleeping Turtle

Jewish Use

I will give the example of the passage that was retained, and the passage that was censored and edited out.

This portion of the passage was retained

"Several factors finally led most Jews to abandon the Greek, including the fact that Greek scribes were not subject to Jewish technical rules of scribal interpretation; that Christians favoured the LXX; and the gradual decline of the Greek language among Jews after most of them fled from the Greek-speaking Roman Empire into the Aramaic-speaking Persian Empire when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans. Instead, Hebrew/Aramaic manuscripts compiled by the Masoretes, or authoritative Aramaic translations such as that of Onkelos, of Rabbi Yonasan ben Uziel, and Targum Yerushalmi, were preferred. The LXX translation began to lose whatever official sanction it might have had after differences between it and the Hebrew scriptures were discovered."

This portion of the passage was omitted, censored, and deleted:

"However, even this premise has obvious problems: If the LXX were an official Jewish translation, how would it ever have received any official sanction, if it disagreed with the Hebrew text - (the Hebrew Massoretic text) - from which it was translated  ? The jewish dispersion after the fall of Jerusalem may have contributed to the growing renunciation of Hellenization among Jews. All these factors combined and the Jewish people adopted the Masoretic text, except for works such as the Maccabees, which was not part of the books of the Old Testament."

There was no explanation for the deletion, no discussion, no conversation, no opinion voiced, no intellectual discussion. There was simply a hand of censorship. Surely those who make the effort to work on this article, deserve the same amount of respect, as that which the Censors ...would grant to Themselves ??? (Theo)

There is no evidence that the Septuagint was translated from the Massoretic text and much evidence that it wasn't. --Zero 02:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Textual History (formerly: Dating and Critical Scholarship)

I have found that the following paragraph was deleted, without comment or explanation. IT seems as though there is a deliberate effort by some to keep specific information about some aspects of the Septuagint from the eyes of the public. Why not trust the public instead ?

Here is the paragraph in question:

"There are additional problems with these codices. To say that Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus Both represent the Septuagint leaves the impression of a homogenous uniform text that these two codices share. However, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus differ from each other in more than two thousand places. There are entire verses missing, and many of the changes between them are substantive. Therefore to contend that Both of these codices represents the "septuagint" is actually an argument for our lack of knowlege, of what the text of the septuagint actually is. Is the text of the Septuagint the text of Codex Vaticanus, or is the text of the Septuagint the text of Codex Sinaiticus ? Yet even these questions pose new problems. The text of Codex Vaticanus is often represented as a "nearly complete manuscript". This leaves the impression that it was written by one author, over the course of his own lifetime. But the only reason why Codex Vaticanus is even called a nearly complete manuscript is because the parchment on which it was written - is actually what is nearly complete. Let us not confuse that - with the contents of the Manuscript. Codex Vaticanus shows a great deal of alteration over the centuries. Not only does it show alterations, it also shows that many of the original verses were washed out, thereby allowing for the substitution of a Different greek text. In several cases, the original words can still be made out which demonstrates the difference between the older words and the more recent changes. As others have pointed out, Codex Vaticanus show that at least ten different scribes over the centuries have altered its contents. Therefore to portray Codex Vaticanus as an uncorrupted manuscript is false." (Theo)

To want to improve the article is commendable. To disagree is reasonable. To simply keep information from the public is regretable. Surely those who claim to be theologically in favor of the septagint...will NOT now demonstrate that commitment, by an exercise in censorship. As those from every religion point out, God is bigger than that.

[I have copied this page in case it is changed or the contents are edited out]

(Theo).

Please get a username and sign your comments properly. The passage you quote above is an opinion piece full of unattributed opinions. Things like that can only be presented as opinions of named scholars and can't simply be written into the article as if they are universally accepted. --Zero 02:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have already listed my email. Therefore please explain why you would like me to sign in, when you can already reach me by email. One does not have to be signed in, in order to participate, and I can be reached at theophane1054@yahoo.com . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.3.74.108 (talk • contribs) .

You should sign your posts on talk pages because it helps assure the rest of us that you're the same person who wrote the day before or the week before, and perhaps the same person who made some particular edit, and not someone else merely pretending to be Theo. It's not a strict requirement, but it is considered part of good manners by many of us old-timers. Wesley 18:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"The view favored in early Christian circles was that the differences are primarily due to intentional or accidental corruption of Masoretic text in Medieval times"

This sentence in the article should be revised. How could "early Christians," who were among the Ancients, ascribe anything to "Medieval" corruption of texts?

Anyway, I'm not aware of any early Christians who assumed that the Hebrew was corrupted. The closest view to this - not univerally agreed upon by the Church Fathers - was that the newer Jewish Greek versions were uninspired and inferior to the LXX, which was in this view the authoritative version. No such judgement was cast on the Hebrew itself; its authority and divinity were unquestioned. Such a view, which seems inconsistent today, was possible because few Christians understood Hebrew and because no one suspected that other Hebrew texts, different from contemporary ones, ever existed. --Hanina

Justin Martyr (Dialogus cum Tryphone) did suggest that the current Hebrew was inferior to the Septuagint, though obviously "Masoretic" and "Medieval" are anachronisms. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 14:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I misread the Dialogue with Trypho or the translations I am using are faulty, but I do not see a suggestion that the current Hebrew was inferior to LXX. Justin Martyr for the most part contrasts LXX--which is, by Philo's testimony, inspired--with the newer Jewish "versions," "translations," or "interpretations" in Greek. Justin Martyr never makes this comparison explicitly in reference to the Hebrew itself.

It is true that he does also cite four instances where "[the Jewish elders] have deleted entire passages from the version composed by those elders at the court of Ptolemy, in which it is clearly indicated that the Crucified One was foretold as God and man, and as about to suffer death on the cross." Two of these instances have apparently not survived in any version (perhaps due to recensional changes in LXX). Another is not really an "entire passage" but merely a short prepositional phrase that does not appear in Brenton's English translation of LXX either. The fourth passage does appear in our MT (although without necessarily demanding the Christological significance assumed by Justin). Justin himself admits that "this passage from the words of Jeremiah is still found in some copies of Scripture in the Jewish synagogues (for it was deleted only a short time ago)."

This last statement is the only one that might be construed as evidence that Justin Martyr believed that the actual Hebrew text had been altered. Note however that the larger context here is passages "deleted from the version composed by those elders at the court of Ptolemy (i.e. LXX)," implying not alteration of the Hebrew but intentionally anti-Christological censorship of the Greek Bible in the form of Jewish recensional changes. Since Justin certainly regarded the Greek Bible as scripture, the Greek Bible--and not the Hebrew--is probably what he meant by "copies of Scripture. . . in the synagogues." The Dialogue between him and the Jew Trypho centers on Greek Bible as common scripture (as is constant in Patristic writings) with no Hebrew citations at all. I doubt even that Justin was a Hebraist.

In any case, even if Justin Martyr meant that the Hebrew itself had been expunged, this should not be taken as a claim that the current Hebrew was inferior to LXX. Scholars of his day did not understand how texts evolve with time and Justin Martyr did not likely suspect that the current Hebrew was as different from LXX as it undoubtedly must have been. He could not have known that LXX frequently represents Hebrew texts different from those current in his day. (And he certainly did not assume that his LXX likely differed at least somewhat from the original LXX.) If Justin Martyr did believe that the Hebrew was censored in a small number of instances, he most likely attributed this to recent Rabbinical conspiracy and not to a lack of authority of the current Hebrew canon as a whole. For the early Church Fathers, LXX was the authoritative translation of this canon and not the distinct textual tradition we now know it to be. --Hanina

"After three major recensions, the current text of the LXX is for the most part like that of the Masoretic"

This evaluation of the affect of the three major rescensions on LXX is misleading. LXX did not undergo these three rescensions sequentially. The rescensions, as described by Jerome, occured in three distinct geographical regions and led, he supposed, to the varying textual traditions of his time.

And the assertion that the major rescensions universally led to a more MT-aligned LXX is difficult to defend. Scholars who find evidence of a Lucianic rescension tend to describe it as more concerned with the elegance of its Greek language.

This sentence should be restored to its earlier form emphasising the general similarity between LXX and MT.

No, it shouldn't unless there is something that reflects the omissions, additions, and moving of text in Septuagint compared to the Massoretic and also compared to the Samaritan Targum produced about the 100s BCE which matches the Massoretic as far as having the material in the same places and having Aramaic versions of the Hebrew material where Septuagint leaves things out.

I think that these issues have all been surveyed sufficiently in the article, especially in the subsection, "Relationship between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text." —Hanina

"the text of the LXX is in general close to that of the Masoretic. . ."

Indeed the example quoted as a "substantial difference" between the two texts does not qualify as such in the context of this section. Two paragraphs earlier, the section brings the focus to true textual differences between MT and the Hebrew sources of LXX (". . . [T]he Septuagint provides a reasonably accurate record of an early Semitic textual variant. . . that differs from ancestors of the Masoretic text.") The example cited here, however, may not reflect such textual differences.

LXX and MT here might reflect nearly identical consonantal texts. The Hebrew text in front of the LXX author at Genesis 4:7 may have been all but identical to the MT text of the verse. This hardly represents a "substantial difference" in the sense implied by the section's discussion of source texts.

I have therefore replaced the word "substantial" with "noticeable." But this issue requires more clarification on this discussion page and perhaps additional modification of this section of the article. --Hanina

Don't put this information on lplg into the page until you have some backup for it.

Yes sir. --Hanina

commentary objecting to what is posted needs to have specifics

If you believe that what I have written is not documented or that documentation is lacking, then please ask concerning the specific issue so that I can provide the specific data. Otherwise, Your perspective about what I have proposed being only an opinion...is itself your opinion.

Not that I mind. However if you have facts to back up a contrary point of view, I would like to find that documentation as well.

The most important piece of information would be the conclusions concerning the potential links between 1) what the septuagint actually was and 2) how that original septuagint correlates to Codex Vaticanus. Thanks. (Theo)

• We have to cite? You're adding large blocks of new material and are giving no citations. If you're going to do it again please do us this courtesy. It is up to the one adding info, not the one removing it, to cite what you have to say.Yahnatan 14:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Ok, I've added some of your material in, but only in cases where a) it was cited and b) where it wasn't openly biased. An answer has also been posted to some of your concerns. Yahnatan 16:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus Contradicting each other - Sources Cited

I propose an addition to my earlier above proposed revision:

My proposed beginning paragraph began as follows:

"There are additional problems with these codices. To say that Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus Both represent the Septuagint leaves the impression of a homogenous uniform text that these two codices share. However, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus differ from each other in more than two thousand places."

After this, I propose the following paragraph:

"James Hoskier was a well known specialist in Greek Manuscripts from the early 1900s. His Two Volume analysis of the Differences between Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus demonstrates that there are more than two thousand differences between these manuscripts. His work "Codex B and Its Allies" is a line-by-line comparison between Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, and includes a detailed footnotes with many additional sources and information concerning other manuscripts covering the same texts".

If you have sources that challenge or dispute this, then please post those. One of the interesting things about Hoskier's work is that because it is an actual line-by-line comparison between these two manuscripts, it would be difficult to characterize his work as mere opinion. [Therefore the conclusions that he reached were the results of the objective study of the data, the two manuscripts]. (Theo) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.66.107.45 (talk • contribs) .

• This still doesn't eliminate the fact that there is a basic LXX tradition. Most of the NT manuscripts have discrepancies here and there, but that doesn't mean you can just throw them out because they have differences in spelling or a word here or there. I will add your material back as a differing opinion, but in a separate section of the article. Yahnatan 15:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply: There are many "traditions" that the Catholic Church (Rome) has. There are traditions about the skull of the saints, there are traditions about human bones supposedly belonging to certain people that they call "saints". There are many traditions. The question is not whether there is a "tradition" of the LXX. The question is the issue of what is the LXX itself. If we are not sure, then this aught to be stated. If you believe that the LXX is a particular manuscript, then that would be your opinion. But if you are suggesting a link between either Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, and either one of those to the LXX, then that needs to be scientifically, forensically, archeologically established. All other Bible manuscripts are required to go through the same process. If someone believes a certain passage belongs in the Bible, or comes from an older version, they must cite the specific sources and attribution, and research, and the basis for the research, in order to justify their conclusion. In addition, the specific manuscripts (as you know all Greek and Hebrew Manuscripts are specifically named and designated upon discovery) being used must also be named. It is not enough to have an "opinion" or a "tradition".

The value of the supposed Septuagint is that it was supposed to be the oldest source of documentation concerning the contents of the Old Testament. The question remains as to how to know for sure that the text that is being attributed as "the septuagint" actually is what it claims to be. Your reply (above) seems to suggest that the work of Hoskier shows only MINOR differences between Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. But the differences are major: there are verses changed, there are verses deleted, there are passages missing, and there are differences of Entire Books. Multitudes of the differences between these Codices are MAJOR. As such, the fact that there are those differences, and that those differences affects the VERBS, the NOUNS, the PRONOUNS, the SUBJECT and the OBJECT of the phrases means that these manuscripts are NOT UNIFORM. The disclosure of this information is significant, and anyone who has an interest in the text of the Septuagint has a legitimate interest in having disclosed to them, that the two most common and most often used manuscripts for the supposed Septuagint contradict - CONTRADICT (since they do not uniformly agree) - Each Other AND further, that these Changes are Substantive. They cannot BOTH be right, where the references to the same verse each show a DIFFERENT Content.

It would be an act of intellectual dishonesty to refer to both Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus as though they support each other, as though they are both uniform, as though they both agree, when it is clear that they do not.

This is not my opinion. Either whatI am saying is accurate or it is not. And if it is not accurate, then produce the data and the sources that would demonstrate and conclusively establish that point. On the other hand, if what I have said is accurate, then it should be reflected in the article, and it should be reflected in the MAIN body of this article.

The work of Hoskier is not simply some personal opinion. You probably already know that Hoskier was a well established scholar with ties to the University of Michigan. The fact of a line by line comparison between Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus is something that most people who work on the Septuagint do not seem the public to want to know. The fact that this exists, is itself deserving of prominent mention, for those who are interested in objective truth, and scientific inquiry. The fact that this can further be obtained today because it is still in print and copies of this can still be found, will provide additional basis for different comments in the future by others.

The differences between Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are substantive, and not as you have said "differences in spelling or a word here or there". Either you have read Hoskier in which case this would present a problem in that you are not accurately characterizing his major Two Volume Work on this topic (Codex B and its Allies), or you have Not read Hoskier in which case your present opinion of his work is the result of a lack of information. Either way presents a problem. You should obtain this work for yourself, but the work is valid and accurate, and the contradictions between Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus deserve prominent mention.

Further, the issue of WHY some scholars would want to keep this from the public is a mystery. It cannot be that there is a problem with the work of Hoskier. After all, his work has been subject to peer review ever since it came out in 1914. It received rave reviews. The public has a right to know this information. Presenting it in the main body of the article is the right and intellectually honest thing to do. (Theo). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.66.107.45 (talk • contribs) .

The source is H. C. Hoskier, Codex B and its Allies: A Study and an Indictment (Bernard Quaritch, 1914). Herman (not James) Hoskier did do a comparison of Codices Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (01), but it was limited only to the gospels. The relevance of Hoskier's work on the gospels to the LXX, which is what this article is about, is at best indirect. Stephen C. Carlson 14:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

At least Theo proved that he is an ignorant bigot. 71.198.169.9 08:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Corrected minor misspelling

I have corrected "Rabbi Yonasan ben Uziel" to "Rabbi Yonathan ben Uziel" thinking that to be ok. --FreezBee 11:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Christian Use

How can the author of this article speak of Jerome, a person that lived in the 4/5th centuries say he compared the Septuagint to the Masoretic Text when the Masoretic Text was developed several centuries AFTER see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text .

"When Jerome started preparation of a new Vulgate translation of the Bible into Latin, he started with the Septuagint, checking it against the newer Hebrew Masoretic Text, he discovered many significant differences. Encouraged by his Jewish friends who provided him the Masoretic"...VS... "It was primarily compiled, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the seventh and tenth centuries CE"

I think the author erroneously mentioned the Masoretic, probably meaning the Jamnian Hebrew Canon of the 2nd century.--Micael 15:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Would you be willing to write an article about the Jamnian Hebrew Canon? 71.198.169.9 08:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Old Table

ΓΕΝΕΣΙΣ	Genesis
ΕΞΟΔΟΣ	Exodus
ΛΕΥΙΤΙΚΟΝ	Leviticus
ΑΡΙΘΜΟΙ	Numbers
ΔΕΥΤΕΡΟΝΟΜΙΟΝ	Deuteronomy
ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΝΑΥΗ	Joshua, the son of Nun
ΚΡΙΤΑΙ	Judges
ΡΟΥΘ	Ruth
ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΩΝ Α´	Kingdoms I. (1 Samuel)
ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΩΝ Β´	Kingdoms II. (2 Samuel)
ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΩΝ Γ´	Kingdoms III. (1 Kings)
ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΩΝ Δ´	Kingdoms IV. (2 Kings)
ΠΑΡΑΛΕΙΠΟΜΕΝΩΝ Α´	Omissions I. (1 Chronicles)
ΠΑΡΑΛΕΙΠΟΜΕΝΩΝ Β´	Omissions II. (2 Chronicles)
ΕΣΔΡΑΣ Α´	Esdras I.
ΕΣΔΡΑΣ Β´	Esdras II. (Ezra)
ΝΕΕΜΙΑΣ	Nehemiah
ΤΩΒΙΤ	Tobit
ΙΟΥΔΙΘ	Judith
ΕΣΘΗΡ	Esther
ΜΑΚΚΑΒΑΙΩΝ Α´	I. Maccabees
ΜΑΚΚΑΒΑΙΩΝ Β´	II. Maccabees
ΜΑΚΚΑΒΑΙΩΝ Γ´	III. Maccabees
ΜΑΚΚΑΒΑΙΩΝ Δ´	IV. Maccabees (often omitted or printed as an appendix in the Orthodox Church)
ΨΑΛΜΟΙ	Psalms (including Psalm 151. In addition, the LXX numbering of the other Psalms is slightly different from the Masoretic)
ΙΩΒ	Job
ΩΔΑΙ (with ΠΡΟΣΕΥΧΗ ΜΑΝΑΣΣΗ)	Odes (with Prayer of Manasseh) (often omitted in the Orthodox Church)
ΠΑΡΟΙΜΙΑΙ	Proverbs
ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑΣΤΗΣ	Ecclesiastes
ΑΣΜΑ	Song of Solomon
ΣΟΦΙΑ ΣΑΛΩΜΩΝ	Wisdom of Solomon
ΣΟΦΙΑ ΣΕΙΡΑΧ	Wisdom of the Son of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)
ΩΣΗΕ	Hosea
ΑΜΩΣ	Amos
ΜΙΧΑΙΑΣ	Micah
ΙΩΗΛ	Joel
ΟΒΔΙΟΥ	Obadiah
ΙΩΝΑΣ	Jonah
ΝΑΟΥΜ	Nahum
ΑΜΒΑΚΟΥΜ	Habakkuk
ΣΟΦΟΝΙΑΣ	Zephaniah
ΑΓΓΑΙΟΣ	Haggai
ΖΑΧΑΡΙΑΣ	Zechariah
ΜΑΛΑΧΙΑΣ	Malachi
ΗΣΑΙΑΣ	Isaiah
ΙΕΡΕΜΙΑΣ	Jeremiah
ΒΑΡΟΥΧ	Baruch
ΘΡΗΝΟΙ	Lamentations of Jeremiah
ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ ΙΕΡΕΜΙΟΥ	Epistle of Jeremiah
ΙΕΖΕΚΙΗΛ	Ezekiel
ΣΩΣΑΝΝΑ	Susanna
ΔΑΝΙΗΛ (with ΤΩΝ ΤΡΙΩΝ ΠΑΙΔΩΝ ΑΙΝΕΣΙΣ)	Daniel (with Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Young Men)
ΒΗΛ ΚΑΙ ΔΡΑΚΩΝ	Bel and the Dragon

Why were the changes made to the table? In particular, a lot of books got left out, and the new labelling of Εσδράς A/B as Ezra/Nehemiah directly conflicts with the information found on 1 Esdras and others. Does Adminster claim that the deuterocanonical/apocryphal books weren't in the LXX?/blahedo (t) 05:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I just did some hunting around and everything I found, e.g. [1] and [2], agree that apocryphal/deuterocanonical books were present in LXX. They do not all agree as to which ones, but I've pieced together a consensus that it's the Catholic deuterocanonicals plus 1 Esdras. The rest of the Orthodox deuterocanonicals and the apocryphal books not already covered (including 3/4 Macc, 2 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Odes, Ps 151) seem to come from other sources than LXX. I've updated the body of the page and the table at the end to reflect this. Note that this page is not primarily about the books that aren't in the LXX; any significant discussion of that belongs in one of the Apocrypha pages, probably Biblical apocrypha. /blahedo (t) 02:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Christianity

The Christianity box was deleted without discussion. The texts in the Septuagint are shared by Jews and Christians, so I do not see why this article should not be related to Christianity. I am adding the Judaism box.   Andreas   ^(T) 18:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This pertains to other articles in Category:Bible, where reference to Christianity is given but none to Judaism. Maybe some work must be done to crossreference these articles. For example, Thorah is in the category:Biblical books, which is a subcategory of category:Bible, a subcategory of category:Christian texts and category:Religious texts. The latter has no subcatebory category:Jewish texts.   Andreas   ^(T) 19:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we please get rid of all the side boxes - both Jewish and Christian?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Guedalia D'Montenegro (talk • contribs)

Hanina, Please give a rationale for your claim here. Side boxes appear in some articles and not in others. There should be consistency and a pattern.   Andreas   ^(T) 14:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the side bars are distracting, of little benefit and sometimes offensive. The easiest thing to do is to get rid of them altogether. What is the rationale to include them? Perhaps they might be included after the main body of the article - maybe in the links section.User: Guedalia D'Montenegro

Clean up

A very nice battery of clean up edits and clarifications, Hanina. Thanks for your efforts. Rwflammang 01:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Rwflammang. This is a very good article on a topic of interest to many, and I look forward to working on it some more. --Hanina 23:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Contradictory

Moreover, in many of the places where the LXX differs from the Masoretic Text, the same variants exist in the Dead Sea Scrolls, showing the antiquity of some of these variants and the reliability of the LXX. AND most of the verses of the Dead Sea Scrolls correspond more closely with the Masoretic Text than with the Septuagint where those two diverge.

What does this mean ? I have found this webpage which confims what I thought : Comparisons of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint show that where there are differences between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint, approximately 95% of those differences are shared between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic text, while only 5% of those differences are shared between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint.

-- Squallgreg 20:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Not so contractadictory. Sometimes the DSS side with the LXX, but more commonly with the MT. I don't have the numbers, unfortunately. Rwflammang 21:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanx Rwflamnang. I found this webpage that provides % of matches between MT, LXX and DSS. I dont know how much reliable it is. Also, I am surprised that, online, a lot of websites argue that the DSS prove the LXX is better than the MT. Because of a couple of differences (Isiah and Jeremiah for examples), they decided that the MT is no longer a good bible. The truth is, the DSS are overwhelmingly Masoretic-text in flavor. They are closer to the MT than to the LXX in fine.

http://www.crosswire.org/pipermail/sword-devel/2002-June/014585.html

-- Squallgreg 04:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct Spelling of Anagignoskomena

I get a lot more hits for anaginoskomena than for anginoskomena when I do a google search. I propose, based only on this, that anaginoskomena is the correct spelling. Can anyone give me a more authoratative source than google? Rwflammang 14:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

anagignoskomena = αναγιγνωσκόμενα. The other does not make sense in Greek. I will correct this.   Andreas   ^(T) 16:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. For what it's worth, google agrees with you with more hits for Anagignoskomena than even for Anaginoskomena. Rwflammang 17:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not 100% certain, but anaginoskomena is the Koine (post-classical, hellenistic Greek) spelling, so I think Septuaginta would probably also have that spelling.--Nikolaj Christensen 19:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'd be surprised if the word occurred in the Septuagint at all, since its a word about the LXX, rather than from the LXX. If it does occur there, please let me know which verse. Rwflammang 12:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, I guess you're right. Well, anyway, I believe words about the Septuagint would also be in Koine, since Septuagint was translated in the Koine period.--Nikolaj Christensen 12:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Dead Sea evidence

This subsection is of questionable value as this very subject was briefly discussed in the Textual History section. Further, it seems out of context here as its relationship to evaluating the merits of the Vulgate is tenuous.

I refrain from cutting the whole paragraph as that seems drastic. But the unclear citation from Deutoronomy was only distracting in a passage already digressive. As for what all of this "suggests," I do not see how this discovery shows that the Hebrew source of the LXX was nessarily "older" than the sources of the MT. What is clear is that Hebrew texts referenced by Jerome corroborate the MT.--Hanina 05:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Greek Orthodox

There is no such thing as the Greek Orthodox Church. Most of Greece is covered by the autocephalous Church of Greece, but some parts of Greece and the Greek Diaspora are under the Orthodox Church of Constantinople. These are the two churches that do not use a translation of the Septuagint. Other Eastern Orthodox Churches ue translations from the Septuagint. Making the link pointing only to the Orthodox Church of Constantinople means leaving out most of the motherland Greeks who, of course, also use the Septuagint in the original.   Andreas   ^(T) 14:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we can simplify the list of appropriate churches by identifying them (specifically in this context, of course) as a group, perhaps as "Greek Orthodox Churches." (I suppose that "Greek Churches" may mean what I intend if understood in terms of Greek-language liturgy; but "Greek" has some national/ethnic connotations and perhaps Greek Catholics do not use the LXX, I do not know.) -- Hanina

Differences in Tanach, KJV, and Septuagint

I'm referring to the Artscroll Stone Tanach in English The KJV standard The Septuagint by Sir Lancelot L. C. Brenton in English.

I was reading in Hosea 8:7: For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind: it hath no stalk: the bud shall yield no meal: if so be it yield, the strangers shall swallow it up. [this is from KJV].

Hosea 8:7 For they sowed blighted seed and their destruction shall await them, a sheaf of corn that avails not to make meal; and even if it should produce it, strangers shall devour it. [this is from the Septuagint-Brendton]

Hosea 8:7 For they sow wind and they will reap a tempest; it has no standing stalks, a sprought that will produce no flour; and if it should somehow produce, strangers will swallow it. [this is from the Artscroll Stone Tanach]

If you read Hosea in all three, you will find a pattern of such differences. I do not think all books of the Bible have this problem, though.

Tobit vs Tobias

Someone keeps changing the name of Τωβίτ to Τωβίας in the table of books. My copy of the LXX (Brenton's Greek edition) has Τωβίτ. Are their any Greek editions that use Τωβίας? If so, can you give me a reference? No, I don't consider the Vulgate a reference since it translates Tobias from an Aramaic text, and not from the LXX. I don't believe that the name of the book in the Vetus Latina is Tobias either, but I haven't seen an edition from the Vetus Latina. In the Nova Vulgata it is Thobi (genitive Thobis) following some non-Vulgate medieval manuscript or other. Rwflammang 15:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Gook work editing here, RWFlammang.

Wouldn't Tobias just be the older Greek spelling of the book of Tobit?

Obviously, the title evolved over time. (-T is a common Semitic ending for proper names.)

The existence of Tobias is well attested and it is used on your user page in place of the Book of Tobit. -T is not a Greek declension. The older books of the canon are all declined in Greek. Brenton declines the titles in his Greek LXX with Greek grammatical endings except the later books Tobit and Baruch. Some other later versions likewise do not decline foreign names in titles especially in the Apocrypha. But it is clear that the older versions all use Tobias, based on the Greek declension. Since the Vulgate was based on the Aramaic (but not entirely, Jerome used extant Greek manuscripts for much of the Apocrypha), it should be clear that the title did not come from the Aramaic. Most all of the titles (20) of the Vulgate are based on the Greek, since those were the official titles recognized then by the Church.

An interesting question you have brought up. Wyeson 02:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

After further reflection, I took this out of the main article (it was a bit tedious) with a link here:

⁴^ Βασιλειω̑ν (Basileion) is the genitive plural of Βασιλεῖα (Basileia), which means kingdom. It is not the same as the nominative singular of Βασίλειον (royal house).

⁵^ Τωβίας is the Greek declination of MT Tobit, occurring in the Vetus Latina, translated from Old Greek, and in the old Vulgate. The New Vulgate uses Thobis. Brenton's LXX version has Τωβίτ.

This is what remains:

⁴^ Βασιλειω̃ν (Basileiōn) is the genitive plural of Βασιλεῖα (Basileia).

⁵^ Τωβίας is the older Greek title of Tobít. See Talk.

Yes, but my edition of the Septuagint calls the book Τωβίτ, not Τωβίας. Of the two forms, Τωβίτ would seem to older (2nd century BC); I know of no earlier example of Tobias than the Vulgate (4th century AD). Jerome translated his Book of Tobias from the Aramaic or Hebrew, not Greek, see Jerome's Prologue to Tobias. If you know of an edition of the LXX that uses a different title, please tell me the reference. Since the titles of the books in the table should reflect what the Septuagint actually calls them, I will change the title to Τωβίτ and provide a reference. If you change it back, I must insist that you do so with a reference. Rwflammang

I copied the following from the article. It belongs on the talk page, and not in the article. Needless to say, I disagree with almost everything it says. I'm still waiting for a reference to a edition of the Septuagint that uses Τωβίας instead of Τωβίτ. Rwflammang 18:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Τωβίας Brenton, Lancelot C. L.The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English, (London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1851) uses the Masoretic form, Τωβίτ, an Aramaic spelling. This is consistent with Brenton's use of Codex vaticanus, which replaces many Old Greek readings and books with later works based on extant Hebrew and Aramaic texts, such as the Theodotiontic. For example, Brenton's Book of Daniel is not the Septuagint's version, but the newer Theodotion's, although original portions, or perhaps the whole book itself, of Tobit was written in Greek. Τωβίας is simply the Greek spelling of Aramaic Tobit. But the version now included in most versions of the Apocrypha has a reading "Tobit son of Tobias" and entitles the book after its main character Tobit. The exact reading of the original Old Greek is still being reconstructed. Thus a discussion about the modern version of the book should rightly have the modern title "Tobit." However this article is a discussion of the Septuagint and its original Old Greek form, not the Aramaic-Greek or Hebrew manuscripts. To replace the old title with the new is to make assumptions about the Old Greek readings of the text. Therefore, to avoid anachronism, the Old Greek title is to be used here rather than the Aramaic of modern versions.

Τωβίας is the original Greek title of Tobit. It is the basis of all ancient daughter versions of the Septuagint, including the Latin Vulgate of 425 AD. A "daughter version" is a translation of the Septuagint, and thus its titles reflect the Greek usage and not that of some other language. Tobias is a common personal name in the Western world where the newer Tobit is unheard. Tobias and its English derivative Toby (according to the Oxford English Dictionary) have been used since the conversion of the Anglos-Saxons to Christianity. For example, "Toby" is used in Nehemiah 6:14 of Wycliffe's translation (1395),which is the oldest complete English version of the Bible, but Tobit is nowhere to be found in that Bible. Tobit appears for the first time in the West in Coverdale's translation (1535). He was the first English translator to translate the Old Testament from Hebrew, rather than the Greek or Latin, as had been done previously. Therefore the modern title Tobit is anachronistic in discussions of the Old Greek form of the Septuagint. See Talk.

Sheesh! Where do I begin? There is no Masoretic version of Tobit! Are you saying that Τωβίτ is Theodotiontic? That Τωβίτ is not original to the LXX? Is there any LXX manuscript that uses Τωβίας instead of Τωβίτ? If so, please give me an example! This is not the first time that I've asked you for one, and I'm getting a little tired of it.

The Vulgate's Tobias is not, not, not a daughter version of the Septuagint. It is a translation of a now lost Chaldean version. See the link already cited above: Jerome's Prologue to Tobias. The Vulgate Tobias is remarkably different from the Septuagint's Τωβίτ. Most modern editions of Tobit are translated from the Septuagint, which is why they name it Tobit. Coverdale translated Tobit from the Septuagint, not the Hebrew. Wycliffe translated Tobias from the Vulgate, not the Septuagint. Tobit was the father of Tobias in the Septuagint, not the son; the book was named for the father. In the Vulgate, the father and the son share the same name: Tobias. But this is not an article about the Vulgate, or Wyclif, or the ancient Anglo Saxons. It's article about the Septuagint. In all three editions of the Septuagint I've looked at, the name is Τωβίτ. You say there was an older Greek version of this name. Where does it survive? I assert that it survives nowhere, because it never existed. If I am wrong, please correct me with a reference to a Greek edition or manuscript. Rwflammang 19:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Obviously, Tobias exists. Tobias is Greek. Tobit is Aramaic. Tobias was the title of the book now commonly called Tobit. It is found in the oldest manuscripts. It was the official Church title for the book. Tobias is used culturally throughout Christendom, but Tobit is not. Whichever one is correct for the book is a question for the article on Book of Tobit. This is an article on an ancient Greek text, not the Aramaic original.

The notes are detailed and accurate (as corrected). In fact their thoroughness blows my mind. They humble me.

Therefore I for one must agree with the consensus.

  - Cestus ^Cd 21:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"Obviously, Tobias exists", you say. Then if it exists you will have no problem giving me a reference to an existing edition or manuscript of the Septuagint that contains a book named Τωβίας. You assert that Τωβίας is the older form, but you give no evidence that this is so. Assertion without evidence does not make something obvious. All existing Septuagint editions and manuscripts call this book Τωβίτ, not Τωβίας. The consensus is Τωβίτ. Your footnote as written above is riddled with errors, as I detailed above. You must correct them before you consider re-inserting it in the article. Rwflammang 14:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There is an interesting mention of daughter versions of the Septuagint in the latest version of the great erroneous footnote that keeps reappearing in the article. Can you give me an example of any daughter versions of the LXX that use Tobias instead of Tobit as the name of this book? Rwflammang 20:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Call For Help

---

This article contains several errors in need of correction. I have corrected most of these before, but they seem to come back in as quickly as I can fix them. I'd like to enlist the help of other editors in fixing these problems. Below is a detailed list with references regarding these errors and how to correct them. I hope that many of these errors will be fixed by the time you read this, but I will post these musings anyway, should they recur in the future.

• Masoretic Text. The article states or implies that Jerome translated parts of his Vulgate from the new Masoretic text in preference to the Septuagint. But the Masoretic text was created by the Masoretes in the 7th to 11th centuries. (See the linked articles for more details.) Since Jerome died in the 5th century, he could not have translated from these texts.

• New Hebrew manuscripts. The article states or implies that the Hebrew manuscripts that Jerome used for much of the Vulgate's Old Testament were newer than the Septuagint manuscripts available to him. But the manuscripts that Jerome used are now long lost. We know nothing about their age, other than Jerome's assertion that they were ancient. It is certainly possible that they were newer, but it is also possible that they were older. We just can't tell. The implication that they were newer should be dropped. The article is right to inform us that the use of Hebrew as a basis for a Latin version of the Bible was, at that time, a novelty.

• The Great Toby Edit War. There have been way too many words typed over the relatively trivial issue of what the Book of Tobit was originally called in the Septuagint: was it Τωβίτ or Τωβίας? Firstly, let me point out that my edition of the Septuagint (Brenton) calls it Τωβίτ. It is also called Τωβίτ, Τωβίθ, or Τωβείτ at these on-line editions of the Septuagint: [3], [4], and [5]. I know of no Greek edition or manuscript that calls this book Τωβίας, and no example of one has been referenced by the proponents of this thesis. Background and explanation for the names in this book can be found here [6].

• • Background: LXX. The following quotes are taken from the Septuagint and the King James Bible, whose version of Tobit was translated from the Septuagint. The Book of Tobit takes its name from the opening verse, "ΒΙΒΛΟΣ λόγων Τωβίτ, τοῦ Τωβιήλ, τοῦ ᾿Ανανιήλ, τοῦ ᾿Αδουήλ, τοῦ Γαβαήλ, ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος ᾿Ασιήλ, ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Νεφθαλίμ", that is, "The book of the words of Tobit, son of Tobiel, the son of Ananiel, the son of Aduel, the son of Gabael, of the seed of Asael, of the tribe of Nephthali". Tobit is the father of the book's protagonist, Tobias, Tob 1:9, "Furthermore, when I was come to the age of a man, I married Anna of mine own kindred, and of her I begat Tobias", in Greek, "καὶ ὅτε ἐγενόμην ἀνήρ, ἔλαβον ῎Ανναν γυναῖκα ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος τῆς πατριᾶς ἡμῶν καὶ ἐγέννησα ἐξ αὐτῆς Τωβίαν". Note that the book is named after the father, who writes part of it in the first person.

• • Background: Vulgate. This is not an article about the Latin Vulgate, but the following background is important to understand the corrections that are needed to this article. The Vulgate version of of this book is called Tobias. It was not translated from the Septuagint, although some other books of the Vulgate were. It was translated by Jerome from oral Hebrew, read to him by a hired Jewish lector [7]. It is significantly different from the Septuagint version. It takes its name from the first verse. (The following quotes are from the Clementine Vulgate, and the English are from the Challoner revision of the Douay Bible, which is a translation of the Clementine Vulgate.) Tobias 1:1, Tobías ex tribu et civitáte Nephtháli (quæ est in superióribus Galilǽæ supra Naásson, post viam quæ ducit ad occidéntem, in sinístro habens civitátem Sephet), which is "Tobias of the tribe and city of Nephtali, (which is in the upper parts of Galilee above Naasson, beyond the way that leadeth to the west, having on the right hand the city of Sephet)". In verse nine, we read that when he became a man, he took Anna for his wife and begat a son on whom he put his own name, that is, Tobias. It is the son who is the protagonist of this book, just like in the Septuagint.

• • Background: the Nova Vulgata. I'm not sure why the article mentions the Nova Vulgata, but since it does, let me give a little background here. The full story can be found in Latin here. In the Nova Vulgata, this book is called Liber Thobis, which means "the Book of Thobi". It is a revision of a Vetus Latina manuscript which was a translation from the Septuagint. The Nova Vulgata version was revised to better agree with modern critical editions of the Septuagint, with attention to other versions as well. Since it is a translation from the Septuagint, and not from oral Hebrew, it differs considerably from the Vulgate's version. Thobi is the father of Thobias, the book's protagonist [8].

• • Error: Masoretic version. The article asserts that Tobit is the Masoretic version of the Greek name Tobias. But the book of Tobit is in the anagignoskomena and is not in the Masoretic text, which contains only the Tanakh, which are the Protocanonical books of the Old Testament, so this cannot be true. The name Tobiah occurs a few times in the Masoretic bible (e.g. Neh 13:8) as the name of a person, not a book, but nowhere does the name Tobit occur. The names in the Hebrew fragments found in Qumran are Tobi for the father and Tobiah for the son.

• • Error: Tobias is the father of Tobit. As can be seen from the quotes above, it is actually Tobit who is the father of Tobias.

• • Error: Catholic Encyclopedia: Alleluia. The note implies that the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Alleluia indicates that the name of the book is Τωβίας. The money quote from the C.E. is "In the old Greek version of the Book of Tobias...". All this off-hand comment means is that there is in the old Greek a version of the book that the Douay-Rheims-Challoner version called Tobias. The English name is given, the common one in use by Catholics at the time the C.E. was written. The Greek name is never mentioned in this article.

• • Error: vaticanus. A comment in the markup indicates that Vaticanus should not be capitalized, but a Google search on "codex vaticanus" reveals that it is always capitalized, as befits an English proper noun.

• • Error: Theodotiontic. The article implies that the book of Tobit in the Septuagint manuscripts and editions is Theodotiontic. This implication needs to be stated clearly or not at all, and it needs a reference. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

• • Error: Τωβίας is Greek for Tobit.. Not true. Τωβίας is Greek for Tobiah [9]. Τωβίτ is the Greek for Tobi; see pages 6-7 of [10].

• • Error: Tobit is the protagonist. It is actually Tobias, the son of Tobit, who is the protagonist of the book. To see this, read the book itself. It can be found here; click on Tobit in the sidebar.

• • Error: Article is about the original. Actually, this article is not just about the original long-lost Septuagint, but about modern editions and surviving manuscripts as well. There are numerous mentions of both in the article, and even a brief history of printings. Even if it can somehow be demonstrated that the original, long-lost name of the book was Τωβίας, the name contained in most (all?) of the surviving manuscripts should deserve a mention in the table of books.

• • Good advice: Making assumptions. The author of these errors warns us not to make assumptions. That is excellent advice. I suggest we all take it by backing up our arguments with referenced facts. However, advice to editors does not belong in the article, which is exclusively for reader. This should be moved to the talk page.

• • Error: Oxford English Dictionary. The author cites that Toby derives from Tobias, and implies that this is due to the Septuagint's influence on the old English. Actually, it was the Latin Vulgate which was the Bible of old England, not the Septuagint, so the fact that the old English would prefer Tobias to Tobit is hardly evidence of an earlier Septuagint name. Even if the old English were familiar with the Septuagint, I think they would be more likely to name their kids after the protagonist of the book, Τωβίας, rather than its author, Τωβίτ.

• • Error: Daughter versions. No reference is given to any daughter version of the Septuagint that names this book Tobias rather than Tobit. Such a reference is needed if the daughter versions are mentioned in support of the Τωβίας thesis.

• • Error: Vulgate follows the Septuagint. This is of course true for many of the proper nouns of the Vulgate; they tend to be transliterations of the Greek proper nouns, which are transliterations of the Hebrew and Aramaic. But in the case of the Vulgate Tobias, there are big differences between its source and the Septuagint. In particular, in the Vulgate's source, the father and son shared the same name, Tobias. In the Septuagint, they have different names. (See the background items above.) That alone is enough to explain the different names of the books. We don't need to postulate some long lost Greek book to explain this difference.

• • Error: Tobias is more common due to LXX. The article implies that Tobias's popularity as a personal name means that this must have been the name of the book in the Septuagint. But the popularity of this name is quite easily explained by the popularity of the Vulgate in Western Europe and of its daughter versions.

• • Error: Wyclif's translation testifies to older Septuagint version. Wyclif's translation was made from the Vulgate, not the Septuagint. The fact that Wyclif named the book after Tobias rather than Τωβίτ is due to the differences between the Vulgate and the Septuagint, as explained in the background items above.

• • Error: Coverdale introduced the name Tobit as a novelty. The article implies that Coverdale translated Tobit from a semitic language. But Coverdale translated Tobit from German or perhaps Latin daughter versions of the Septuagint text. He did not know Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek.

• • Error: Neutral Point of View. The large footnote to Tobit is polemical in nature, and does not reference any sources except for Brenton, which is argued against in the rest of the note. Such polemical discourses belong in Talk and not in the article. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

• • Error: No original research. The footnote attempts to use force of argument rather than cited sources for its conclusions. The lack of cited sources makes it easy to suppose that the article is original research. The editor proposing the notion that Τωβίας was the original name of Τωβίτ needs to cite other researchers from outside of Wikipedia who drew this conclusion. See Wikipedia:No original research.

Rwflammang 17:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Jesus and the Septuagint

Having read the article and looked at the sources and citations does anyone here feel that an additional section showing the arguements for Jesus using this exact corpus of work. I presume there would be some counterarguements but I feel a case could be made using citations none-the-less. Any comments? (Simonapro 18:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC))

Issues with Jerome

I have some problems with the following paragraph:

When Jerome undertook preparation of the Vulgate version of the Bible (his new Latin translation), he started with the Septuagint, checking it against the Hebrew that was then available. (The current Hebrew "Tanakh" dates to ca 990 AD and there are noteworthy differences between that and Jerome's final version). He discovered many significant differences. At first he agreed with the Christian fathers, such as Justin the Martyr, who believed that Jesus was more clearly prophesied in the LXX than in the Hebrew texts. For example in the LXX and New Testament, Christ is born of a "virgin," but in the Masoretic text, the Messiah is born of a young girl. Even so, Jerome felt it best to break with Church tradition and translate most of the Old Testament not from LXX, but directly from the Hebrew.

• First off there is the location; a paragraph about Jerome does not seem to be appropriate as the second paragraph in a section about Christian use of the LXX.

• Secondly, "he discovered" what he had learned already from Origen. It hardly seems like discover is the right word here.

• Then there is the unsourced claim about what he believed "at first". It strikes me as unlikely as it contradicts what he says in his prologues [11].

• Finally, there is the example chosen of the divergences between the MT and the LXX: the virgin-young-girl issue. It is extremely inapt, since Jerome tranlated the word as "virgin".

Is there anything is this paragraph worth saving? Rwflammang 20:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Jamnian Jumble

In the "Christian Use" section, frequent reference to the undefined Jamnian text renders the entire section incomprehensible to the average reader. But taking space to define this term will weigh down the section with mostly irrelevant material; especially since such explanations must note that the very term Jamnian text is controversial as modern scholars doubt any Council of Jamnia ever convened! (See Biblical canon.)

The term Jamnian text in this section seems to be a way of explaining how Jerome and others had access to a complete Hebrew Bible when MT dates from 990 CE. But that this ancient Hebrew text of Jerome's day and MT tend to agree where different from LXX is not adequately addressed. On the contrary, differences between Vulgate and 'The current Hebrew "Tanakh"' (I think MT is meant) are mentioned as if to deny that 'The current Hebrew "Tanakh"' is the legitimate heir to the Hebrew texts of Jerome's time. More reasonably, reference is made later to "the Jamnian/Masoretic tradition."

The section carries the LXX-MT dichotomy too far when it says that new bible translations use the "mediaeval Masoretic text" but consult the "ancient Septuagint." MT is no more a product of the tenth century than LXX is a product of the fifth century (when Codex Vaticanus appeared). MT was pointed by seventh-century Naqdanim and redacted by eighth-to-tenth-century Masoretes; but the consonantal texts they used descended from the same ancient Hebrew texts among which were numbered Jerome's. The texts had already by Jerome's time gone through a large degree of standardization, with many variations preserved in LXX eliminated from the contemporary Hebrew.

To avoid the "Jamnian" confusion, the tendency to anachronsitically refer to an MT in Jerome's time, and the opposing tendency to isolate MT from its ancient antecedents, I recommend the term "contemporary Hebrew text/s." --Hanina

The following section ("Jamina" etc.) discusses canonization at length. The author begins by referencing my preceding note ("Jamnian Jumble"), describing one of its points--that modern scholars doubt the historicity of a Jamnian Council--as a "gross mis-interpretation [sic]." I address this assertion and other issues below in an indented comment on "Jamina" etc. --Hanina

Jamina Jumble of the Jumble

Please refer to "Council of Jamnia" for background regarding this "Jamnian" controversy. You see, it appears Hanina's remark " as modern scholars doubt any Council of Jamnia ever convened!" was a gross mis-interpretation. Actually, if there is any consensus it is that Jamnia, by most modern scholarly works whether over a 1 year period or a 30 year period, is that it did occur. The little speculation that has arisen, comes via the works of a few. One of these skeptics Jack P. Lewis, in his book The Anchor Bible Dictionary Vol. III, pp. 634-7, specifically, makes the following weak statements in attempting to discredit any "Council of Jamnia"...

"The concept of the Council of Jamnia is an hypothesis to explain the canonization of the Writings (the third division of the Hebrew Bible) resulting in the closing of the Hebrew canon. ... These ongoing debates suggest the paucity of evidence on which the hypothesis of the Council of Jamnia rests and raise the question whether it has not served its usefulness and should be relegated to the limbo of unestablished hypotheses. It should not be allowed to be considered a consensus established by mere repetition of assertion. "

Upon reading, Mr. Lewis, makes several scholarly errors and mis-definitions.

Right from the start, Mr. Lewis, points out a "paucity of evidence". Well, if there was direct evidence then he should not be calling this a "hypothesis". For the definition of hypothesis is an educated proposition accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts. Understanding this we realize that , Mr. Lewis' statement "unestablished hypothesis" is a true oxymoron. If it was firmly established with evidence (in essence a smoking gun) then it would not be called a hypothesis.

However, lets look at the established facts which does make the Council of Jamnia and this Phariseal Jew Canonization highly probable and a legitimate hypothesis for the time of the canonization of what is referred as the "Hebrew" Scriptures.

1. There is no scholarly consensus as to when the Jewish canon was set. However, we do know it must have been set some time between 60-200 BC(during the formation of the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls), and the 10th century - the date of the Masoretic Text. With this in mind we need to understand certain pivotal periods in Hebrew/Phariseal Jewish history and the time most likely for this to occur would require the congregation of Phariseal Jews in the Holy Land. Additionally we must understand that even thought there may have been various Jewish divisions of differing powers there was no one single Jewish sect which had superior powers above all other and each utilized various books as scripture. The Saducees held only the Pentatuch(1st five books) as their lone scripture, Essenes to a larger volume of books than the Pharisees, diaspora/Hellenist Jews, Ethiopian Jews and the grand majority of Jews including Christ himself and his Early Church used the Septuagint canon, naturally including Christian Jews.

2. The grand majority of Jews, including those in the Holy Land, at least 200 years before Christ and centuries after did not speak Hebrew they spoke Aramaic (with Greek as the official language), as Christ. Therefore, the predominant use of the Septuagent Old Testament.

3. The destruction of the Temple at 70 AD left Phariseal Jews of Palestine with little to identify themselves and the last they needed is to abide by an exact canon and language used by the newly converted Christian Jews. Thus, a need to discard themselves of any canon connected with the Septuagint canon. (again I remind you it was the Septuagint canon of Old Testament scriptures utilized by Christ and the apostles, as a matter of fact, it is quoted over 300 times in the New Testament included many of Jesus' very own words.) Additionally, the Pharisees realized that the conversion of many Jews to Christianity was directly related with the Septuagent version of the Old Testament with the more explicit language regarding the coming Messiah- for an example see the Book of Wisdom 2:13 and compare it to Matthew 27:43 and Psalms 22:8. Even more reason to hastily establish and close a "Hebrew" (Phariseal) canon to deal with this Christian conversion problem among their very Jewish brethren now that Jews had lost the very central tenement of Judaism, the Temple at Jerusalem.

4. With all this in mind one must question...whom has place the Pharisees, those that rejected Christ and their offspring, Rabbinic Judaism in a position of primacy regarding Hebrew Canon and much less Christian Old Testament Canon? Additionally why could it not be inferred that Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai one of the original founders of Rabbinic Judaism ,whom left to Jamnia after the temple was destroyed and was a central figure in the codification the Mishna oral law during the late 1st century did not also at the very least initiate the formulation of the Hebrew (truly a "Phariseal" Hebrew) Canon during that same time. Consequently, the "hypothesis" of the Council of Jamnia and the establishment of the "Hebrew" canon.

Lastly, the bottom line is that the Pharisees had no more say with regard to the final codification of Old Testament Scripture than any other Jewish sect of Jesus' time. Neither one of these groups had any superior authority among themselves, even less-so over the Early Christian Church. The Church which WAS given the authority- by Christ- to bind or loosen as is well documented in scripture in Matthew 16:18-19: "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

And it was that very same church, which did finally "bind" the entire Word of God, not simply half- the New Testament canon, but also the Old as well as the New Testament to provide all Christians the entire written Word of God, as authorized by Christ. This occurred during the Synods of Hippo and Carthage of 393 and 397 AD. (NOTE: All Christians accept the authority of these synods in providing the New Testament canon. Yet what many Christians are illinformed of, is that the purpose of these meetings was closing the entire written Word of God not simply the New Testament. Therefore, if a they accept its authority in providing the New Testament canon then they must also accept their consensus regarding the Old Testament canon. Instead of giving Christ rejecting Phariseal Jews the authority to tamper with half of the word of God.)Micael 16:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand what bearing this final point has on the historicity of the Council of Jamnia, which the author states to be "highly probable and a legitimate hypothesis." For those who believe with the author that the "bottom line" is that the Rabbis hadn't the authority to close the canon, of what significance then would this council be? This final claim, that only the church may truthfully set the canon, may be made whether or not a Council of Jamnia occurred.

Even prior to this "bottom line," the author never demonstrates that occurrence of a Council of Jamnia was "highly probable." Points 1-4 review the history of the era with some doubtful assertions--that the "grand majority of Jews, including those in the Holy Land" did not speak Hebrew, that a conversion of "many Jews" to Christianity was directly related to the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, that a "Septuagint canon" existed by 70 CE. Such "established facts" lead to the speculation that the Rabbis needed or wanted a canon and that therefore a Jamnian Council indeed convened. In the end, the Council of Jamnia remains an hypothesis ("legitimate" or otherwise) with a paucity of evidence to support it. --Hanina

In my opinion, the last thing this article needs is a reference to the council of Jamnia, which in my experience is only ever used as a whetstone for grinding some ax regarding the Biblical canon. We already have an article on the Biblical canon, and it is not necessary that it, and its issues and problems, be duplicated in articles like this one. These same tired NPOV points already pollute articles like Deuterocanonical books, Apocrypha, Biblical apocrypha, and many others. We should not let Septuagint become yet another article hijacked by canon controversies. There is no reason why it should; the whole discussion is off topic. The less said on this subject here, the better. Jamnia has nothing to do with the Septuagint. Rwflammang 15:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Only Torah was translated

I am not sure if this has been mentioned, but Josephus, Philo, and the Talmud all confirm that only the 5 books of the Torah were translated into Greek during the 3rd century. The rest of the current day Septuagint was not translated by those that translated the Torah, and they were translated by who knows who over the next 300 or so years. The entire Septuagint was pretty much useless in terms of conveying what the Hebrew actually said by the 3rd century.

Origen tried piecing together a decent translation with about 6 side by side and came to the following conclusion:

"“we are forthwith to reject as spurious the copies in use in our Churches, and enjoin the brotherhood to put away the sacred books current among them, and to coax the Jews, and persuade them to give us copies which shall be untampered with, and free from forgery!” Origen, A Letter from Origen to Africanus, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 4.]"

Anyway, today's Christian Old Testaments are full of errors that spawn from this.

Who knows who translated the Torah? What's your point! According to this line from the article: "While there are differences between these three codices, scholarly consensus today holds that one LXX — that is, the original pre-Christian translation — underlies all three" implies that there was one recognized body of translations at some point BC. I'm hoping someone can give a quote about this. KittyHawker 21:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Not even wrong

I must assume that the statement that the Septuagint means pretty much what the Hebrew meant was taken from one of the sources and not the statement of somebody who has read the Hebrew. I have read both and the Septuagint is so far off in so many cases that it is not even wrong. The Greek translators had no clue how to handle the construct in Hebrew and that leads to a lot of nonsense.

But the modern Masoretic Text is not the text the Septuagint was derived from. KittyHawker 21:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You cannot possibly be saying that a grammatical structure that appears in the Talmud -- which predates the Masoretic -- did not exist in the Pentateuch when the Septuagint was written because you obviously understand that you cannot prove a negative.

Are you referring to something specific? If the Dead Sea scrolls and the Septuagint agree on something, I think it's safe to say that it is authentic. As regards proving a negative, you can often do that beyond a reasonable doubt. Maybe not with certainty. KittyHawker 04:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you have seen the Dead Sea scrolls or photographs of the text? I thought I had found a publication on CD but I changed to a different page on the Web and couldn't find it again. Do you have a copy and is that what you're using for a basis? Please tell me the title and so on so I can find it. I remember it was pretty expensive but maybe the price will come within my range or I can save up to get it.