Septuagint Puns

Is there a reason for why the writers of the Septuagint (assuming they were actually 72 scholars from the 12 tribes of Israel) translated the word “Almah” as “Parthenos”?

"But wild beasts shall rest there; and the houses shall be filled with howling; and monsters (σειρήν) shall rest there, and demons shall dance there, and satyrs (ὀνοκένταυρος) shall dwell there; and hedgehogs shall make their nests in their houses. It will come soon, and will not tarry."

Brenton's LXX Isaiah 13:21-22

After years of forgetting about the topic, I've renowned my interest in Biblical studies and textual criticism, however, I forgot a lot about this area and am slowly catching up to the material that I used to read, before that I was always more into Hebrew, but now I've started to develop more love toward Koine Greek, and I became very interested in the Septuagint.

I want the most recent, updated, and complete critical version of the OT in Koine Greek, which one should I get?, you got the Rahlfs edition, the latter's Rahlfs-Hanhart revision, or the various ones listed on this page, is there another one that I might be missing and what are their differences?

For the moment while I do not have a physical version (digital ones are recommendable too, especially if they work with Biblical software), I read the Septuagint here on the site StepBible, but they only have the Standard(?) LXX and "Orthodox Tradition" (ABPGRK) versions, but I'm not exactly sure what these are, I also understand that interlinears don't really help with learning the original language of the manuscripts.

https://stepbible.org/?q=version=ABPGRK|version=LXX|version=AB|reference=Gen.1&options=VLUCMVNH&display=INTERLEAVED

Are these suitable translations of one another?

In the Greek Septuagint, there was the usage of ἄρσενος κοίτην in the verse Leviticus 20:13. Then in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, there's the usage of αρσενοκοίτης, which is an apparent combination of the two words to reflect a similar meaning.

So from a purely linguistic standpoint, what would you say about the usage and meaning of this, taking into account the Septuagint? What would you add as far as cultural/historical context?

I'd like to hear both pro- and anti-gay perspectives on this, if possible. Thank you to any who reply.

So, I'm arguing with this guy who's claiming that because the Septuagint is older than the Masoretic text, that means it is likely that the Masoretic text is in fact a translation back into Hebrew of the Septuagint. I know this to be patently untrue. I know that the differences in the two texts show this to be the case. I know that the fact that the Septuagint is older is claimed by some as evidence that it is superior to the Masoretic text (and is not its source). I know that the Dead Sea Scrolls show some texts closer to one than the other, although more closer to the Masoretic text, and that the En-Gedi scroll has excerpts that are an exact match to the Masoretic text.

But for none of this do I have a clear scholarly source stating it to be the case. This guy has dredged up some old sources from 1911 and 1945 that he says are his evidence for his claim, although the one source is only the first page and doesn't say anything of the sort, and the second I don't see showing his argument. But the guy is adamant, and since I have not provided him with evidence for my argument, he doesn't seem to want to provide me with quotes from his sources to show his.

So with all that said, I would really like a reference to something, anything, that I can give him to prove his idea is ludicrous, but I can't actually find such evidence because, well, it's ludicrous so there's nothing showing that it's not true because no one needs to disprove it.

Does anyone here have any idea where I can find a scholarly source that even just in passing notes something that shows that the Masoretic text was not derived from the Septuagint?

According to traditional dating, the Septuagint was translated under Ptolemy II. However, the Book of Esther's Greek edition was dated to either 76 BCE or 47 BCE("In the fourth year of King Ptolemy and Queen Cleopatra", according to the text), while the Book of Judith was most certainly written after the Maccabean Revolt, as Jewish tradition has dated the story of Judith to the time of Maccabean revolt and made Judith a scion of the Hasmonean Dynasty.
Did Hellenistic Jews add new books or make new translations to their own Scriptures to replace the old translations somewhere between Ptolemy II and Cleopatra VII to distinguish themselves from the Hebrew-based Pharisaic Jews? Or was the current edition of Greek Bible actually finished during 1st Century BCE, under Ptolemy XII or Cleopatra VII's reign, instead of under Ptolemy II as traditionally believed?

The title really says it all. I'm looking to get a translation of the septuagint to complement the translations I have, which are mostly based on the Masoretic Hebrew.

It seems that there are four main options:

Brenton's*

NETS

Lexham English Septuagint

Orthodox Study bible

If any of you have one of these versions, feedback and recommendations would be appreciated.

*Brenton's is basically out of the running for me. I want a translation that has all the Septuagint books, and one based on more modern textual scholarship than Brenton's.

I’ve been fiddling around with the Septuagint and all three Vulgates (Clementine, Stuttgart, and Neo-Vulgate) and comparing them with Alter’s psalm translations and other translations of the Hebrew.

I’ve reached up to Psalm 9, and Alter makes some comments about the damage to that text and the “next” psalm (probably originally one unit that got numbered differently by error) that leave me scratching my head.

If I understand Alter correctly, Psalms 9 and 10 were originally one acrostic poem, as they remain in the Septuagint and the old Vulgate. Sometime before the Masoretic compilation crystallized, the Hebrew of Psalm 9 was perhaps damaged to such an extent that communities reading the Psalms in the original Hebrew felt compelled to “fix” the gaps that the destruction had left, the acrostic structure was lost, and the second half somehow became what is now called Psalm 10 in the Hebrew numbering.

Meanwhile, while it is a translation, the Septuagint that perhaps preceded this textual catastrophe does not have this same issue here (feel free to correct me). So, while it may be true that the Greek translator of Psalm 9 (and “Psalm 10”) made translational errors, given that they stuck with the whole unit as one psalm it seems they had at least had a better idea of what the Hebrew said than the Hebrew scribes scrambling to fill in the blanks.

I mean, if the Hebrew is that bad, I’m a bit puzzled why the Septuagint/Vulgate isn’t taken as a guide as to what the Hebrew might have said. This case is particularly obvious, but looking at Alter’s other comments where a minor shift in vowels nets you a completely different word, I’m scratching my head as to why textual critics don’t rely more heavily on the old translations of the Hebrew—in languages that don’t seem to be as subject to the same sort of corruption (the vowel thing can’t happen that often in Latin, can it?) than they do on imaginative reconstructions based simply on moving around vowels and other niceties.

I am totally 100% on board with making translations directly from the original languages. I mean, I love the Douay-Rheims translation of the Vulgate, but “out of the authentical Latin” makes me giggle even though I am familiar with how “authentic” is understood in that context.

Situations like these, though, make me wonder if we have gone too far in the other direction. Hebrew seems to be a rather delicate language for scribes, at least moreso than Latin, where the textual issues are ofte

I don’t know if it’s a common misconception, or why I thought this, but I have thought for the longest time that the Vulgate was a translation of the Septuagint (the OT part of it at least). Maybe I thought this because it was arranged in the same way, with kings 1-4 instead of Samuel, and with the deutsrocanonicals, and the title of chronicles.

But now I recently have discovered that St. Jerome appears to have made basically the same mistake that Martin Luther made with the deutsrocanonicals, and rejected the Septuagint in favor of the Hebrew OT that the Jews of his time were using, despite being urged against this by St. Augustine and many others of the time.

The Septuagint, however, is the Old Testament that the apostles, and Jesus himself used and read and quoted from in the NT. The Septuagint is basically the closest thing there was to the official Old Testament in the realm of Christianity, if not superior to the Hebrew that pre-dated it, since it was approved by God himself, as Christ read and quoted from it.

So what was Jerome thinking? Why did he do this? And also, why did the Church allow it to then be elevated as the authorized translation, and the official translation of the head of the universal Church (Rome)?

Has anyone purchased the Papoutsis Translation of the Septuagint Old Testament and the New Testaments? If so, what did you think of the translation, especially in terms of readability?

Read here if you're wondering if International Septuagint Day is indeed real. =)

Looking for ways to celebrate? Check out a blog post I wrote called "What Should I Read on the Septuagint?" and then sing along with "The Septuagint Song."

Which one should be preferred and why, when it comes to textual criticism? What are the strengths and weaknesses of each from the perspective of biblical scholarship?

https://pajheil.blogspot.com/2016/07/fact-checking-torah-septuagint-out-of.html?m=1

http://pajheil.blogspot.com/2016/07/fact-checking-torah-septuagints-bad.html?m=1

http://pajheil.blogspot.com/2016/07/fact-checking-torah-septuagints-bad_22.html?m=1

Can these arguments about the Septuagint be rebuked or explained

I am particularly interested in the additions made by the Greek Septuagint like the appendix of Job in Job 42:17.

Hey, all - I'm not Eastern Orthodox, but I have a lot of respect for the faith, and was suggested that this subreddit would be a good place for my question from someone on r/AcademicBiblical. Who better to ask than the people who still use the Septuagint, eh?

I asked if anyone there knew about Byzantine manuscripts of the Septuagint, and where I could find some. I'm interested in finding some both from an academic standpoint (ex. "How do they differ from Codex Sanaiticus/pre-Origen fragments/whatever?") and just because I think it would be cool from a historical standpoint (ex. "Approximately what would Justinian I or Constantine XI have read?") I'm also a fan of the Byzantine Text-type in New Testament textual criticism, so it all works out.

If anyone has any knowledge or resources, I'd be grateful; even if not, thanks for at least taking the time to read this, and may God bless you.

As I'm doing the daily readings from the OCA today, I noticed that the OSB verse 22 for 3 Kingdoms is verse 20 for every other translation on Bible Hub. I went back a few verses and noted that the OSB skips verses 8:12-13 from the other translation. I even looked at the New English Translation of the Septuagint and it goes from verses 11 to 14.

I tried searching for "missing verses OSB" or "Septuagint", but I'm coming up empty. I understand that different translations will have different content sometimes, but I'm still curious. Does anyone have an explanation for why some verses are omitted?

Justin Martyr claimed that the Jews of his day (150 CE) were changing the text of their own Tanakh (a.k.a Old Testament) to counter the connection with Jesus Christ and Old Testament prophecy.

>Justin's use 'proof from prophecy' was entirely appropriate as regards his Christian audience as 'mainstream'Christians accepted the validity of the prophets and recognised the Old Testament as Scripture.

>468 In the mind of Justin, there are so many prophecies fulfilled by Christ, that the Jews resort to mutilating their Scriptures, excising those passages that obviously refer to him: Osborn, Justin Martyr, p.90. Justin shows astonishment at the Jewish claim that no words have yet been fulfilled (Dial. 110. The Jews argue contentiously when proof is obvious( Dial. 118), and do not admit knowledge that damages their case(Dial. 125).

See page 155 of the PDF document, section which is titled "Appropriateness of the Argument":

https://researchbank.acu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1235&context=theses

I am having trouble finding a resource that will offer an interlinear function where I can know in English what each Greek word in the Greek Septuagint means in a verse but also its Strong's Concordance number. Any advice on a website or free software that would have this information readily available?

Specifically because they believe it is a more accurate version of the Tanakh, not because they already know Greek and think it would be easier to read.

Read here if you're wondering if International Septuagint Day is indeed real. =)

Looking for ways to celebrate? Check out a blog post I wrote called "What Should I Read on the Septuagint?" and then sing along with "The Septuagint Song."

In the Greek Septuagint, there was the usage of ἄρσενος κοίτην in the verse Leviticus 20:13. Then in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, there's the usage of αρσενοκοίτης, which is an apparent combination of the two words to reflect a similar meaning.

So from a purely linguistic standpoint, what would you say about the usage and meaning of this, taking into account the Septuagint? What would you add as far as cultural/historical context?

I'd like to hear both pro- and anti-gay perspectives on this, if possible. Thank you to any who reply. (Also posted on r/AskBibleScholars)

I hear the lexham translation is the best but I’m not sure what do you think?

I am having trouble finding a resource that will offer an interlinear function where I can know in English what each Greek word in the Greek Septuagint means in a verse but also its Strong's Concordance number. Any advice on a website or free software that would have this information readily available?