the Septuagint

>>1125644
>what's the deal with the septuagint?
It's the oldest translation of the Bible.

>why do they translate passages so differently in some cases?
Because different translators were working on it with different processes and mastery over the languages. Sometimes they're more literal, sometimes they go for an interpretive translation.

Please refer to the New English Translation of the Septuagint - I'm referring to both the To The Reader of The NETS and the introductions of each book - for further, specific questions:

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/

>is the septuagint a translation of a different hebrew bible than the one we have today?
They didn't have the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia back in the day.

If Qumran is of any indication, you would find versions agreeing with the MT ("proto-Masoretic Text", the majority), or the Septuagint, or something else ("Qumran Bible").

The Masoretes weren't there to standardize the texts.

>do jews hold it in high regard at all?
Hebrew Bible or nothing.

>how did it originate?
Go to the paragraph on the Septuagint here:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3269-bible-translations

A Greek translation of the Torah would allow a foreign king to understand what this Judaism thing is about.

>>1125740
>The Masoretes weren't there to standardize the texts
Are you saying that before the Masoretes there were more versions of the Hebrew Bible commonly found? Not sure if I'm understanding you.

>>1126046
Yes, and Qumran shows that.

>>1126145
Do you think there is such a thing as an "authentic" version of the Hebrew Bible or was there always a multiplicity of versions?

Most of that should obvious OP.

They translated Hebrew, which is a pretty complex language itself, into another complex language, and then several hundreds to millennia of years later, someone has to translate it to English.

As someone who has studied Ancient Greek for quite a while, it's pretty hard to translate complex texts written in that language, without the meaning being lost.

>>1126160
If you knew the painstaking care in which they copied the torah to preserve it, it would boggle your mind.

For instance, one wrong letter and the entire scroll is trashed.

Each letter has a numerical value. So each grid of letters has a value both horizontally and vertically. These sums are checked with every copy of every page.

Some copyists would take baths in between letters.

If you cannot trust the transmission of the torah, you really cannot trust any transmission of any kind.

>>1126225
>implying methods of transmission have remained even remotely constant over 2500 years

>>1126238
I know you can't imagine life before the printing press, but do try.

>>1126160
The Septuagint was as canonical as the Hebrew Bible among Hellenistic Jews, for example Philo's work is entirely based on the former, if it wasn't canon he would've commented the Hebrew Bible alone.

The Jewish Annotated New Testament contains all manner of short essays on the Septuagint, the inter-testamental period, Hellenistic Jews, Jewish sects before Judaism went Rabbinical, etc.

>>1126249
It was also certainly canonical among early Christians. Many of the fulfilments of prophecy in the New Testament only make sense if you refer back to the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew Old Testament. This is why it’s still used as canon by the Orthodox churches, among others.

>>1126243
He has a point. How do you know they went to such painstaiking length before the Talmudic regulations for copying a Torah scroll were officially in place? There are no laws in the Torah itself regulating the manner in which it is copied. What makes you think the methods were either uniform (i.e. everyone did it this way) or constant (i.e. it was always done this way)?