Talk:Septuagint manuscripts

"Dines, Würthwein"

A footnote says:

Compare Dines, who is certain only of Symmachus being a truly new version, with Würthwein, who considers only Theodotion to be a revision, and even then possibly of an earlier non-LXX version.

Complete titles of the quoted books and if possible page numbers would be desireable. Mendelo (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No reason that Tetragram should dominate a mss article

Far too much of this article is a sub-topic treatment of the Tetragrammaton in Septuagint manuscripts

If this is worth a page (arguable) give it a page as its own topic. Or place the information on a Tetragrammaton page. This article is skinny on its real topic, Septuagint manuscripts, and I have to wonder whether the page was placed here by someone whose real purpose was related to Tetragram issues (I have not checked the history of how the page developed.) StevenAvery.ny (talk) 11:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this. It does seem that the page was created to do more with the treatment of the tetragrammaton rather than the actual manuscripts of the LXX. There is already a tetragrammaton page, and I'll look at merging the info on here in that topic instead. Stephen Walch (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, bar the helpful list of LXX manuscripts, I don't see why the other information needs to be included when it's already on the Septuagint page. I shall check to see whether there's anything different mentioned (that isn't pointless), and then edit this page accordingly. Stephen Walch (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Questions

I just edited the article to use standard format for Wikipedia, mostly changing centuries to use ordinals instead of Roman numerals. I also noticed some lines which were different from the others and which may be errors. Please check:

• "13th/16th century"
• "10th/12th century"
• "X (P X/XI)"
• "8th/11th century"
• "CL XVI; Kamil XVI/XVII"
• "3rd/5th century"
• "2nd/4th century"
• "11th & 16th century"
• "9th and 13th"
• "11th-14th century"
• "14th-16th century"
• "11th & 16th century"

Also "lub" appears several times and is not defined. It could be Polish for "or", but I don't know. Thank you.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  07:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Basic Bib. Ref. uestion

Does someone know what's the difference between the '.', the '-' and the ':' in the biblical references ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.166.69.98 (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

These are standard punctuation points, but let's use the example from Z: Ez 1:9-2:5, 3:1-9:4 - the first : indicates that the number preceding is the chapter (chapter 1), and the number following is the verse (9), so Ez 1:9 is Ezekiel Chapter 1 verse 9 ; following this is the - which usually indicates to, so Ez 1:9-2:5 would therefore be Ezekiel Chapter 1 verse 9 to Ezekiel chapter 2 verse 5. The full-stops usually occur after book names to show they're abbreviated, thus Genesis can be cited easier as Gen., or sometimes even as Ge. Hope that helps! Stephen Walch (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

What date is IIE?

In Part IV "IIE" appears as a date 3 times. What does it mean?

George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello @George Rodney Maruri Game - Likely this should've said "II CE" rather than "IIE". As this indicates the 2nd century, I've amended the three times this occurs. Stephen Walch (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Several abbreviations not explained.

Cat.

Ps. Od.

Auct.

(E+I)

Is. c. comm. marg.

Reg.

Par.

Idt.

George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello @George Rodney Maruri Game - Cat. = Catena | Ps. Od. = Book of Odes | Auct. = Shelf location at the Bodleian Library in Oxford | E + I = Manuscript names | Is. C. Comm. Marg. = Isaiah Catena Commentary (in the) margin | Reg. = Regum aka Book of Kings (incorporates 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings) | Par. = Paralipomenon aka books of 1 & 2 Chronicles | Idt. = Judith. You will note most of these are taken from the Latin names of the books of the Bible. All these notes are taken from the housing library descriptions of the manuscripts in questions, where abbreviations abound. Stephen Walch (talk) 12:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Dates in this list vs. dates in articles.

Here, Codex Vaticanus is dated 350. In its article, it is in the range 300–325. So, it is out of the range.

Here, Codex Sinaiticus is dated 350. In its article, it is in the range 330–360. It is inside the range.

Please, make the dates consistent with its corresponding articles.

George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello @George Rodney Maruri Game - Afraid I don't know where the pages for Vaticanus and Sinaiticus got such specific dates from, especially when the sources cited for the date of each manuscript don't give anything as specific (though a terminus ante quem for Sinaiticus is 325, as it contains the Eusebian Canons). I've amended both article pages, and amended this to match. Stephen Walch (talk) 11:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Greek manuscripts not considered in this list

Why are lists, such as List of New Testament papyri and related, not being taken into consideration in this article? Were any of them not a part of the Septuagint despite lots of them were in Greek? George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello @George Rodney Maruri Game - The "Septuagint" is the name given to the Old Testament (aka Tanakh) translation from the original Hebrew (and certain Aramaic portions) into Greek, and not a description of the entire Greek Bible. As such "Septuagint" is OT books, and is separate from NT books, as the NT books were originally composed in Greek (despite certain statements to the contrary), whereas the "Septuagint" is (mainly) just a translation (obviously some of the Deuterocanonical books don't necessarily fit this description). That is why the NT manuscripts aren't in this list - they're related, but not the same. Think you may need to do some more reading on the Septuagint if you're going to be asking these sorts of questions. Stephen Walch (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess that, the fact that Deuterocanonical books were here, made me believe that it was an "always-ongoing" operation for those 70 or 72 guys (if the legend is true). Now, thanks to you, it seems it was rather some sort of project. So, I guess there is some date limit. It doesn't matter the language (in this case Greek). I guess that any Scripture produced, after certain year, especially if its origin is Christian, will not be considered here. Am I right? (Thanks for your patience. I appreciate it a lot.) George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty much it. Evidently, any book which isn't on the Septuagint page, isn't a Septuagint book :) Stephen Walch (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Codex Bodleianus

Why is it called Codex Bodleianus (E+I)? What does E+I stand for? I haven't been able to find a source using those letters. George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Codex Parisiensis??

BnF, Gr. 20 is called [Codex] Parisiensis here. But, I have not been able to find a source telling it is its name.

It might be misleading as there is a "real" Codex Parisiensis the subject of which is Frisian Law. https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/record/40680 https://www.worldcat.org/title/codex-parisiensis/oclc/3095833

I added to the article a reference which shows BnF, Gr., 20 which is the manuscript containing Psalms.

https://portail.biblissima.fr/ark:/43093/mdata8d089019556759b1c8551b79433273935c169ac1 George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Om.-Mosch.

I searched for "Om.-Mosch." and got weird results.

Edward gibbon, a write, spelled mosque as "mosch". In German, "mosch" means rubbish or junk; and, according to The London Encyclopaedia, in "Belgian" (Flemish? Dutch?), "mosch" means moss.

I guess it is a library or museum in Damascus. I know the most important libraries in Damascus are: The Assad National Library followed by The Library of the University of Damascus and, The Al Zahiriah public library. There is the National Museum, too.

Can anyone, please, tell what "Om.-Mosch." means? George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Mosch. will be a shortened form of the German Moschee meaning mosque, so this reference is to a mosque. All the manuscripts coming from it are said to be "lost" now, so guess there will be no way to confirm much on them. However I believe Om. is a shortened form of the German Omajjaden, that is the Umayyad Mosque in English. Stephen Walch (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it most certainly is the Umayyad Mosque. See pages 47-48 here. Stephen Walch (talk) 10:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Items 962, 963, 993, 1249, 2202, 7055, 7056, 7057 and 7058 dates

Can anyone re-write those dates in a more standard way? What does <E> next to a date mean? George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm guessing this should be CE or something. Frankly I have no idea what <E> should be, so removing it is fine. I'll replace with "XX century" as most of the other manuscripts.Stephen Walch (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

What kind of date is Bizantium?

Several items feature Bizantium as their date. It sounds more like a place or geographical region to me.George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

It's more an Empire, and "Byzantium" can just indicate the time period of the Byzantium Empire, ranging from 395 CE - 1453. Stephen Walch (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Item 994

It says that it contains some verses of the book of Daniela (female). Unless it is written in Malagasy, I think it should say "Daniel".

George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Evidently just a typo. I have corrected it. Stephen Walch (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Montserrat

The wikilink for Montserrat is pointing to the island in the Caribbean.

Unless, those old manuscripts were taken there by some extremely pious pirate, I think it should point to somewhere else.

The corresponding disambiguation page, Montserrat (disambiguation), provides several more likely options in Spain (a lot of options, in fact). I doubt these items are in Dominican Republic or other places in America such as Colombia and Argentina.George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Correct, it's certainly not the Caribbean Island. It should be in fact the Abadia de Montserrat, aka, Santa Maria de Montserrat Abbey. I'll update the links to the right place. Stephen Walch (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Codex Sinaiticus

"... missing Gen 1:1–46, 28; Ps 105:27–137:6?" There is much more Old Testament text missing than Gen 1:1–46, 28; and Ps 105:27–137:6 is not missing in Sinaiticus but in Vaticanus. Ktiv (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

MUCH, MUCH too long!

The article is now 268,086 bytes, which is far too long. It was outrageous that the current main editor removed a tag to that effect! That it is now divided into sections makes very little difference. In some 17 years editing WP, it is one of very few articles my computer can't cope with, which is a pity because the start of the lead is near-gibberish, & I can't open it to edit. It urgently needs to be WP:SPLIT into at least four articles, which the structure makes easy to do. Also, why is the great majority not a WP:COPYVIO of the main source? Johnbod (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The "article" itself isn't long - the list section is but the first section (of which I've reworded the general summary - it was indeed somewhat gibberish) isn't and takes about 5 mins to read. My computer opens up the edit portion no issue. As for why the majority is not a copyright violation is provided for by the actual "Manuscripts of the Septuagint" from Logos:

Manuscript data was assembled first based on H.B. Swete's Introduction, which was then consulted and expanded with information found on Wikipedia's Septuagint Manuscripts page

Essentially a published source has used wikipedia's open-sourced content which would put it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Perhaps this highlights the requirement for an extra source for the list of Septuagint manuscripts as there's circular referencing here (Wiki - Logos - Wiki again). But meh, that's far too much work really for what is just a list of manuscripts, their contents, and their current location. It also doesn't just quote "Manuscripts of the Septuagint" verbatim nor does it repeat any "creative language or sentence structure" from the source. Stephen Walch (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The article is indeed MUCH, MUCH too long! The text portions are pretty short. Since you are in the fortunate and perhaps unusual position of being able to edit the lead, please re-add the "too long" tag, which you should never have removed. Johnbod (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm still not sure why you aren't able to edit the article - I've tried on several different PCs now (including my mobile phone) from different internet networks and I am able to edit from all without issue. I still disagree the article size is too long: checking the article size page on Wiki under the "lists, tables and summaries" this points to the statistical data policy, of which an example of a split page has the split off page at 271,834 bytes in size/length: this is longer than this which is at 268,074 bytes. If the example is larger than this page, there's no need to split this into any further pages. It is already split into varying sections which are easy to navigate. The tables are also a lot shorter than the example page's ones - the "two way race" table for instance took 38 rotations of my mouse wheel to get through - most of the tables here take about 3-5 rotations to get through, longest one being part 2 which took 11 rotations. Stephen Walch (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm totally sure why I can't edit the lead - the article is MUCH, MUCH too long! You have some nerve pointing to a fractionally longer page & saying this one is ok! There are lots of longer pages, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no argument. I note your refusal to re-add the tag. Johnbod (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

This page has been over 260k in size since 2015, and only in Jan 2024 (that's 9 years for those whose arithmetic skills are poor) did someone seem to think this was too long to add the tag. Plus so what if it's 2% shorter (or over 3k bytes) than the example? That's evidence of a page being used as an official example of a split off page from a main article which is larger than this page which is the main article, yet is not deemed "too long" of a page in and of itself. Also the wikipage you've just pointed me to happily has this to say as well (plus this seems only to be concerned with whether to delete an article or not; hardly germane to whether we need more pages with just the data moved). Note I'm not adding the too-long tag addition back all you like: just because you state you're unable to edit the page when the history of the article shows others don't have the same problem is not an argument that this article is too long to read "or navigate comfortably". It is neither too long to read nor navigate comfortably, and adding the auto-hide feature made it easier for the page to be loaded quicker, hence why I removed the tag. Perhaps you should try editing this page to see if you have the problem there (also a good example of a larger page (19k+ bytes) which appears to be fine for length). Stephen Walch (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Just found this handy list of long articles. I think we're going to be fine with the page at the current size. Stephen Walch (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)