Talk:Septuagint

Composition/Canonical Differences
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  <-> 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?

Septuagint vs. Masoretic order
(Note: this is not concerned with apocryphal books.)

The Septuagint shares its ordering with the Christian Old Testament. But the Masoretic text has a differently ordered threefold structure: Law, Prophets and Writings. At what points in their histories did the orderings begin to settle, and to settle in their different ways? And how? And why? These topics appear to be missing from the various articles.

Could someone who knows about this update the relevant articles, please? Or at least provide a few pointers here, so that other editors among us could update them. Thanks.

Feline Hymnic (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * One pointer would be "An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek" PART II CHAPTER I "Titles, Grouping, Number, and Order of the Books" pp197-230.
 * Viking Rollo (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * For reference, I've also just found this: https://claudemariottini.com/2021/09/06/is-the-book-of-chronicles-the-last-book-in-the-hebrew-bible/


 * Feline Hymnic (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The internal order within the Ketuvim is problematic. Jerome mentioned yet another Jewish tradition in the Prologus Galeatus. The Jewish Bible site Mechon Mamre lists the book of Chronicles first, disagreeing Dr. Mariottini’s conclusion. My conclusion is Menahem Haran in that article is right - there was no authentic order within the Hagiographa in ancient times. And apparently still isn’t.
 * Viking Rollo (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

mixed up accounts

 * "The full title ... derives from the story recorded in the Letter of Aristeas that the Hebrew Torah was translated into Greek at the request of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–247 BCE) by 70 Jewish scholars or, according to later tradition, 72: six scholars from each of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, who independently produced identical translations. The miraculous character of the Aristeas legend might indicate the esteem and disdain in which the translation was held at the time"

– I believe that two different accounts are here mixed up. It is the Letter of Aristeas, not the "later tradition", that told of six scholars from each of the 12 tribes. Conversely, it is the Talmud (Megillah 9a), not Aristeas, that told the miraculous story of each scholar identically producing the same translation. Aristeas says the opposite: "So they set to work comparing their several results and making them agree, and whatever they agreed upon was suitably copied out under the direction of Demetrius." So this part of the article needs to be revised with one or more good sources. Zerotalk 09:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Groups of books given in "Textual history"
Are the groups of books given in 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)

Hebrew Forgery
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)
 * That may "appear" to you, but to no-one else. Johnbod (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)