Talk:Septuagint/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Oldest translation? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  LXX is not a translation from MT 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Greek Used In the LXX is not Koine Greek 

message: 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)
thread_title: Jewish Use

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Textual History (formerly: Dating and Critical Scholarship)

message: 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)
thread_title: "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"

message: 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)
thread_title: commentary objecting to what is posted needs to have specifics

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: At least Theo proved that he is an ignorant bigot. 71.198.169.9 08:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus Contradicting each other - Sources Cited

message: I have corrected "Rabbi Yonasan ben Uziel" to "Rabbi Yonathan ben Uziel" thinking that to be ok.
--FreezBee 11:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you be willing to write an article about the Jamnian Hebrew Canon? 71.198.169.9 08:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrected minor misspelling 

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

message: ΓΕΝΕΣΙΣGenesis 
ΕΞΟΔΟΣExodus
ΛΕΥΙΤΙΚΟΝLeviticus
ΑΡΙΘΜΟΙNumbers
ΔΕΥΤΕΡΟΝΟΜΙΟΝ Deuteronomy
ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΝΑΥΗJoshua, the son of Nun
ΚΡΙΤΑΙJudges
ΡΟΥΘRuth
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)
ΝΕΕΜΙΑΣNehemiah
ΤΩΒΙΤTobit
ΙΟΥΔΙΘJudith
ΕΣΘΗΡEsther
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)
ΨΑΛΜΟΙPsalms (including Psalm 151. In addition, the LXX numbering of the other Psalms is slightly different from the Masoretic)
ΙΩΒJob
ΩΔΑΙ (with ΠΡΟΣΕΥΧΗ ΜΑΝΑΣΣΗ)Odes (with Prayer of Manasseh) (often omitted in the Orthodox Church)
ΠΑΡΟΙΜΙΑΙ Proverbs
ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑΣΤΗΣ Ecclesiastes
ΑΣΜΑSong of Solomon
ΣΟΦΙΑ ΣΑΛΩΜΩΝWisdom of Solomon
ΣΟΦΙΑ ΣΕΙΡΑΧWisdom of the Son of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)
ΩΣΗΕHosea
ΑΜΩΣAmos
ΜΙΧΑΙΑΣMicah
ΙΩΗΛJoel
ΟΒΔΙΟΥObadiah
ΙΩΝΑΣJonah
ΝΑΟΥΜNahum
ΑΜΒΑΚΟΥΜHabakkuk
ΣΟΦΟΝΙΑΣ Zephaniah
ΑΓΓΑΙΟΣHaggai
ΖΑΧΑΡΙΑΣZechariah
ΜΑΛΑΧΙΑΣMalachi
ΗΣΑΙΑΣIsaiah
ΙΕΡΕΜΙΑΣJeremiah
ΒΑΡΟΥΧBaruch
ΘΡΗΝΟΙLamentations of Jeremiah
ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ ΙΕΡΕΜΙΟΥEpistle of Jeremiah
ΙΕΖΕΚΙΗΛ Ezekiel
ΣΩΣΑΝΝΑSusanna
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)
replies: text: Ok, I just did some hunting around and everything I found, e.g.  and , 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)
thread_title:  Old Table 

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

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Correct Spelling of Anagignoskomena

message: 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)
thread_title: Dead Sea evidence

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Hello

message: -----
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: , , and . 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 .
** 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 . 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 .
** 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 . Τωβίτ is the Greek for Tobi; see pages 6-7 of .
** 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)
thread_title:  Call For Help 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jesus and the Septuagint 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Only Torah was translated 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Not even wrong