/lit/ - Literature

>>13903383
rakka a cute
https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/default.asp
http://ecmarsh.com/lxx/

>>13903383
Orthodox Study Bible
Brenton's English Septuagint
The New English Translation of the Septuagint

Don't you know how to use a search engine?

>>13903383
Because they'd rather translate from the original language than translate from a translation. Not hard to figure out, you know?

>>13903383
>>13903488
Also, modern translations do take into account the various translation streams: the Septuagint, Vulgate, Peshitta, etc. There's not a total reliance on the Hebrew, but it is used as the primary text as it should be.

>>13903498
This. My ESV Bible has footnotes when the readings differ and lists them, it's not some big antichrist Jewish conspiracy.

>>13903508
>it's not some big antichrist Jewish conspiracy.
well, it might be, we don't know for sure.

>>13903488
>Because they'd rather translate from the original language
Isn't the Septuagint much older than the masoretic text? Some of the inconsistencies in the OT suddenly go away in translations where the Septuagint is the primary source. I get the impression that the masoretic texts aggressively try to wipe away all evidence of syncretism.

>>13903518
>Isn't the Septuagint much older than the masoretic text?
We have older complete copies of the Septuagint. But what is the Septuagint? You realize it isn't a singular text, yes? It's a conglomeration of texts whose readings have to be determined by textual criticism, just like everything else.
>Some of the inconsistencies in the OT suddenly go away in translations where the Septuagint is the primary source.
This makes it arguable that the Septuagint is in error, then. It's more likely that a translator "smoothed over" an inconsistency than a copyist introduced an inconsistency into a text. That is arguable, of course, but it's one method used by textual critics.

>>13903488
The original was ancient Greek. Hebrew, Aramaic and so on show severely impaired development in their ancient history, with overall number of words being quite low. Information density alone, it would be hard to say something as simple as "a few cows wandered down the path" per circa 500 BC writings. Anyone who thinks the old testament was written with such a poor tool is sorely mistaken. The most logical theory is that Greek or Linear B was the first language which parts of the Bible were written in. It was cause of offense to many which led to an exodus and this became quite popular in a barren nation with only a few thousand fertile acres between sea and desert. I've read them both and its clear ancient greek was the original. An earlier Christian epistle declared that this language was how God authored the earth.

>>13903547
>The original was ancient Greek.
Lol. That's the only response your post is worthy of.

>>13903514
I’m still not even sure if we live in Rome or not

>>13903514
Probably worth mentioning how often "the sons/angels of God(s)" is replaced with "the sons of Israel."

>>13903580
Makes sense unlike your rebuttal.

>>13903648
It's nice that you have a completely idiosyncratic theory that has never been believed by anyone in recorded history and that has no evidence to attest to it at all, other than your personal opinion, but it doesn't mean much I'm afraid.

>>13903542
The apostles used the Septuagint.

>>13903753
The apostles were a bunch of travelling homeless hippies.

>>13903383
>t. bible hipster
get over yourself, faggot

You look for more exact words as if you can nullify the two thousand year tradition of commenting and elaborating on what was available, and build a new one.

People usually fail specifically at the last part, that is, if they can even realize it.

>>13903806
Its not elaborating, its hiding.

>>13903542
There's also the DSS and Samaritan Pentateuch that should be compared with along with the LXX and Vulgate. The consistency of the Vulgate is also problematic since the most familiar version is the Clementine revision from 1592 and there were variants within different Vulgate manuscripts before then and it also went back and forth in being corrected to agree with the Hebrew and to the LXX.

>>13905398
There's also the Old Latin translation from before the Vulgate.

>>13905398
The Aramaic versions of Targums and Syriac along with other old translations would also be an important witness for corroborating the different readings.

>>13905411
Yeah they're not as widely available though, and also have variations. I don't remember whether it was that a critical text of the Old Latin versions was in the works or just recently completed.