Talk:Textual variants in the Hebrew Bible

Conventions

Some useful conventions that have been developed for editing this article include the following:

Parameters

• Hebrew texts:

: {{langx|hbo|{{Script/Hebrew|[insert Hebrew text here]}}|[insert transcription of Hebrew text here]|[insert approximate translation of Hebrew text here]|label=none}} – [insert textual witnesses to this Hebrew textual variant with references here]

• Greek texts:

: {{langx|grc|[insert Greek text here]||[insert approximate translation of Greek text here]|label=none}} – [insert textual witnesses to this Greek textual variant with references here]

• Latin texts:

: {{langx|la|[insert Latin text here]||[insert approximate translation of Latin text here]|label=none}} – [insert textual witnesses to this Latin textual variant with references here]

• omissions (all languages):

: omitted – [insert (prominent) textual witnesses, which do not mention the textual variant(s) mentioned above, with references here]

Multiple plausible meanings/translations

• One word: When several meanings/translations of the same word are plausible (not just possible), these can be displayed using a forward slash ("/"), e.g. fusca 'black/brown'.
• Group of words: In the case of a closely associated group of words, use an extra space on both sides of the forward slash to clarify which words have multiple plausible meanings/translations, e.g. lectulus 'couch / little bed'.
• Alternate phrases in English: When displaying an alternate translation in English would not be possible or convenient using a forward slash, separate them with ''or'' as independent phrases, e.g. {{langx|hbo|{{Script/Hebrew|אֶ֥רֶץ כּֽוּשׁ׃}}|'e·reṣ kūš.|[the] land of Cush. or [the] black land.|label=none}}.

Brackets and parentheses

• Brackets are used to add a word not found in the source text, but that are necessary or helpful to make a grammatically correct approximate English translation. Such words are usually articles like 'the', 'a' or 'an' (non-existent in Latin, often omitted in Hebrew and Greek), or personal pronouns such as 'I', 'you', 'he/she/it', 'we', 'you', 'they' (often omitted in all three languages); bracket-adding these words is standard procedure. Possessive pronouns are usually not omitted (Greek witnesses normally use αὐτοῦ), and adding them in brackets should be done with more caution. In other cases the verb 'to be' is omitted; bracket-adding it in should be done with caution. These bracketed words are often already provided by Bible translations, but Wikipedia editors should make their own decisions based on what the source text says and how plausible the bracketed additions are. They can also be added where translations provide none, but this should be done with even more caution.
• Parentheses are used to add a word not found in the source text, but are possible to add if they are implied by the source text, or provide a (closely related) alternate translation in English.
  • The most common example is articles like 'the', 'a' or 'an' which are non-existent in Latin, and may or may not be added in English to a similar effect but a slightly different nuance.
    • E.g. in Genesis 1:1, creavit Deus cælum, 'God created (the) heaven'. It's possible in English to say 'God created heaven' (can mean a location/place, but also a situation, or state of being) or 'God created the heaven' (a specific location or place). In English, the article 'the' can be, and often is, omitted in standard phrases, and if Latin omits it, sometimes English can do the same. As humourously demonstrated by the Romanes eunt domus sketch in Monty Python's Life of Brian, if the word domus "house" takes the locative, it can mean "home" instead of "to the house" (ad domum). Similarly, one goes 'to school/college', 'to work' or 'to court' rather than 'to the school/college', 'to the work' or 'to the court'. Whether 'the' can or should be added depends on context, and when both are plausible, "(the)" is the best solution.
    • E.g. in valle Salinarum, 'in [the] valley of (the) Salts'. The first 'the' is bracketed as a presumed English grammatical necessity, the second 'the' is parenthesised because it is not necessary but possible in English. Especially because Salts is capitalised, it could be a well-known phenomenon to the reader and therefore determined. If the Latin text instead read in valle salinarum, then 'in [a/the] valley of salts' would be a better approximate translation, because it is presented as an undetermined or unfamiliar location.
  • Another common example is multiple possible grammatical cases of nouns, or conjungations of verbs, which result in the same letters, but will lead to different meanings/translations in English. E.g. filiae in Egredimini et videte, filiae Sion,, 'Go out and see, (o) daughters of Sion,' (Songs 3:11) is an example of a Latin word that could be genitive/dative singular or nominative/vocative plural. As the two verbs in front of it are plural imperatives, by far the most likely translation is a vocative plural: the subject is addressing a group of people directly and giving them instructions. Therefore, 'o daughters of Sion,' is best. It's theoretically possible that it's a nominative plural, although it wouldn't make grammatical sense, as there is no (presumably third person plural) verb to describe what these daughters of Sion would be doing, but it could be a mistranslation (unlikely). Another reason to still parenthesise "o" is the simple fact that this particle word is obsolete in modern written English (the "O" in expressions like "Oh God!" or "Oh man!" is always written with an "h" behind it, and "oh" is used as an interjection rather than a vocative-like particle; compare "Oh no!", where the word "no" is not a noun, not a person being addressed); but for clarity's sake, editors may still display it as optional.

Order of witnesses

The language order is Hebrew – Greek – Latin. There is no universal standard order for ordering textual witnesses, but they generally rank from the oldest (or otherwise most prominent) to the youngest witnesses.

• Hebrew: MT (K, Q, LC/WLC, AC), xQx, SP, Tg, m., MAM, Kennicott 1780, Ginsburg 1894, BHS (1968–98), BHQ (2004–present)
• Greek: codices (א, A, B, C), LXX^{[insert edition]} (Swete 1930, Rahlfs 1935), Brenton 1879, ABP 1996
• Latin: Vg^{[insert edition]} (Clement 1592, Colunga&Turrado 1946, Nova Vulgata 1979)

What counts as a textual variant?

Same-language variants

• Differences in words or letters between witnesses of the same language: spelling, singular/plural, gender, grammatical tense (e.g. simple present versus simple past), grammatical case (e.g. genitive versus accusative), substituting a verb for a noun or vice versa, etc. Especially in cases where there are only differences in spelling, you do not have to mention what other-language witnesses say in that place, because the difference may be untranslatable.
  • In cases such as a ν (nu (letter)) at the end of a word, or not, shouldn't really count as a textual variant. These appear and disappear almost randomly, and do not effect the meaning whatsoever. If there are no other variations between witnesses, you can combine these witnesses in a single entry; e.g. when one witness says ἐν δυνάμεσι and another ἐν δυνάμεσιν, you can list it as ἐν δυνάμεσι(ν). If this is the only difference between all Greek witnesses of a particular verse, do not list them at all.
• Differences in diacritics, capitalisation or punctuation between witnesses of the same language may or may not constitute a variant, as they may be absent in the original texts and only added by later scribes. Whether these are worth mentioning depends on context, e.g. when confusion between names of people or toponyms is possible, or when a diacritic changes the meaning of a word.
• Omissions or additions of words between witnesses of the same language, or if such omissions or additions result in a significant different meaning between cross-language witnesses.

Cross-language variants

• Simple translations are NOT textual variants. If nouns, verbs or phrases are not literally the same between languages, but have compatible cross-language meanings, they do not constitute a textual variant. Only when a word carries a significantly different meaning or nuance in another language, it is or may be considered a textual variant, and included in the list as such. This is why providing approximate translations is important, to support the claim that this or that word/phrase in Greek/Latin is so different from that word/phrase in Hebrew/Greek that one should consider them textual variants. Adding references to scholarly sources listing textual variants which also identify them as cross-language textual variants is the best way to avoid WP:OR.
• Noun gender differences are not textual variants. For example, the noun for 'day' is masculine in Hebrew (יוֹם‎ yom, as in Yom Kippur), feminine in Greek (ἡμέρᾱ heméra, as in the goddess Hemera), either masculine or feminine in Latin (diēs, as in dies irae), and neuter in English ("it"); that's not a textual variant, but just a language-specific trait. In the example of Exodus 20:11 – וַֽיְקַדְּשֵֽׁהוּ׃‎, way-qad-də-šê-hū. s, 'and (he) consecrated it.' καὶ ηγίασε αὐτήν., 'and [he] sanctified it.' et sanctificavit eum., 'and [he] sanctified it.' – the fact that, in reference to the noun for "day" in each of the three languages, Hebrew and Latin use a masculine possessive pronoun ("him"), whereas Greek uses a feminine ("her"), doesn't make it a textual variant; it's all "it" in English anyway. (It would only be a variant if some versions of the Vulgate had eum and others eam).
• A cross-language different spelling of names (such as personal names, ethnonyms or toponyms) is generally not regarded as a textual variant, but there are exceptions:
  • In the example of Numbers 31:3, MT מִדְיָ֔ן‎‎ miḏ-yān ("Midian") versus LXX Μαδιάν ("Madian", compare Vg Madianitis) the mere fact that Latin and Greek spell this name with an 'a' rather than an 'i' doesn't count as a textual variant; it's the same root word, and confusion with another toponym is unlikely (not even with "Moab").
  • Some exonyms are potential misidentifications: e.g. Syria/Aram, Cush/Ethiopia, Hivites/Hurrians. Taking Numbers 12:1 as an example, there have been centuries of debates (reflected in translation differences) on how to translate הַכֻּשִׁ֖ית‎ hak-ku-šîṯ and כֻשִׁ֖ית‎ ḵu-šîṯ as "Cushite" (NIV: Cushite), "Ethiopian(ness)" (LXX: Αιθιοπίσσης/Αιθιοπίσσαν; Vg: Æthiopissam; KJV: Ethiopian), "black" (Coverdale: Morian), "Indian" (Tyndale: inde, of India), or even "beautiful", and whether or not it refers to Zipporah (the Midianite woman Moses married during his 40-year-exile in Midian according to Exodus 2), and thus whether it could also be understood as "Midianite". The Greek name Χοὺς exists in the LXX both as a personal name and as toponym in Genesis 10, the Latin equivalent Chus ditto; so it's arguably not for a lack of vocabulary that the Greek and Latin translators chose "Ethiopian" as identification, because they could have used a Hebrew-derived ethnonym or toponym as they did with Χοὺς/Chus in Genesis 10, and therefore it is possible the translators erred.

A case can be made that, even if the identification is correct, it is a textual variant, because it is not just a cross-language different spelling of the same root word. But such a case is usually not accepted when it comes to toponyms such as מִצְרַיִם‎ Mitsrayim versus Αἴγυπτος Aíguptos, because virtually everyone agrees that both words always mean "Egypt" (and therefore Αἴγυπτος is excluded from the list of textual variants under the "Simple translations are NOT textual variants" rule).

• Some Bible translations or concordances may be incorrect or misleading: e.g. when ABP translates τῶν ἀλλοφύλων (which literally means "of the [people] of another tribe") in 1 Kings 16:15 as 'of the Philistines', just because Hebrew and Latin versions use לַפְּלִשְׁתִּֽים‎ lap-pə-liš-tîm and Philisthinorum respectively in this place. Whichever why you put it, ἀλλοφύλων is neither an ethnonym nor a toponym, and thus constitutes a textual variant compared to the Hebrew and Latin versions.

• Omissions or additions of sentences or verses, independent of language. E.g. the lack of a Hebrew equivalent to the words ίνα ευ σοι γένηται, 'in order that good [things] should happen to you' found in every Greek witness to Exodus 20:12 (the commandment to honour thy father and thy mother) constitutes an omission in the Hebrew texts, and thus a textual variant.
• Differences in words between cross-language witnesses': singular/plural, gender (unless a noun's standard gender is language-dependent, see above at "Noun gender differences are not textual variants"), grammatical tense, grammatical case, different word functions (e.g. substituting a verb for a noun or vice versa), etc.
  • A very common example is how the Latin Vulgate changes a simple past to a participle and/or uses an ablativus absolutus. E.g. In Judges 20:03, the Greek texts say εμέ ηθέλησαν φονεῦσαι/αποκτείναι (literally "[they] wanted to murder/slay/kill me"), but the Vulgate says volentes me occidere ("wanting to kill me").
  • Different word functions: In places where one witness may have a noun, verb, adjective, adverb etc., but a witness in another language uses a word with a different function, this may be considered a textual variant. E.g. if you write I went walking or I went for a walk, the phrases' meaning may boil down to the same, but the texts are rather different, and may have different nuances.
    • In the example of Exodus 20:11, the noun H7676 שַׁבָּת‎ shabbath "Sabbath" (Greek: G4521 σάββατον) is derived from, but independent of, the adjective H7637 שְׁבִיעִי‎ šə-ḇî-‘î "seventh" (Greek: G1442 ἕβδομος/ἕβδομη, see hebdo-) earlier in this verse (see Biblical Sabbath § Etymology). The discrepancies between the Greek and Latin translations confirm this: יֹ֥ום הַשַּׁבָּ֖ת‎ yō-wm haš-šab-bāṯ is rendered in Greek as τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν ἑβδόμην (lit. "the day the seventh", which aligns with the adjective H7637 שְׁבִיעִי‎ šə-ḇî-‘î), but in Latin as diei sabbati (lit. "[the] day of [the] sabbath", which aligns with the noun H7676 שַׁבָּת‎ shabbath). Therefore, strictly speaking, the Latin translation is correct and the Greek translation incorrect (assuming the Hebrew text was the original).
    • In Deuteronomy 5:16, Greek witnesses use grammatically different construct, namely an adverb meaning 'good' (εὖ) + a verb meaning 'to happen' (γένηται, from γίγνομαι) instead of a verb meaning 'to be good' (יָטַב‎ yatab) as in Hebrew witnesses; Latin witnesses opted for a third solution, namely an adverb meaning 'good' (bene) + a verb meaning 'to be' (sit, from esse): וּלְמַ֙עַן֙ יִ֣יטַב לָ֔ךְ‎, ū-lə-ma-‘an yî-ṭaḇ lāḵ, 'that it may be well with you' ίνα ευ σοι γένηται, 'in order that good [things] should happen to you' et bene sit tibi, 'and [it] may be well with/for you' (lit. 'and may good be to you'). It may boil down to the same meaning, but the texts are saying something different.
  • Another example is using different words to say the same thing, which does constitute a cross-language textual variant. E.g. in Genesis 34:14 Hebrew לְאִ֖ישׁ אֲשֶׁר־לֹ֣ו עָרְלָ֑ה‎, lə-’îš ’ă-šer- lōw ‘ā-rə-lāh;, 'to an uncircumcised man' and Latin homini incircumciso, 'to an uncircumcised man' are fully compatible, but Greek ἀνθρώπῳ ὃς ἔχει ἀκροβυστίαν·, 'to a man who has [a] foreskin' describes roughly the same situation but with different words and grammar; this example does count as a variant and has been included.

Beware of flaws in Bible translations and concordances

Apart from the ABP example mentioned above (where τῶν ἀλλοφύλων is incorrectly claimed to be compatible with לַפְּלִשְׁתִּֽים‎ lap-pə-liš-tîm and Philisthinorum), The Interlinear Hebrew Bible, Brenton's 1879 Septuagint with English translation and other editions show a similar tendency of ignoring what the Hebrew/Greek source text says, and instead providing an English translation based on the KJV or some other traditional English version that deviates significantly from the source texts they purport to translate. In other words: do not blindly trust the (English) translation given by Bible concordances or Bible translations, because they may seem compatible with equivalent words in Hebrew/Greek/Latin, but may reflect poor or lazy translations, or unjustified harmonisation attempts.
This is what you can do:

• Checking seemingly parallel passages that may not mean the same: I've mentioned in an edit summary of Judges 21:11b that παρθένους περιποιήσεσθε is literally 'take care / look after the virgins' [imperative], and Brenton 1879 mistranslates this as the virgins ye shall save alive [future], which is not only the wrong tense, but the wrong meaning of the verb in question; Brenton probably based it on a similar passage in Num 31:18, where the words ζωγρήσατε αὐτάς do mean "you shall save them (alive) ", but in Judges 21:11b they do not, and he shouldn't have more or less 'copypasted' his translation for Num 31:18 to Judges 21:11b.
• Not assuming the KJV got it right: Similarly with ἐν παντὶ ὁρίῳ Ἰσραήλ (literally "to all borders of Israel") in Judges 19:29, Brenton seems to have quoted the KJV verbatim by rendering it as "to every coast of Israel", while wikt:ὅρος never means "coast", "littoral", "shore" or anything of the sort in Ancient Greek. No modern critical English edition of the Bible uses "coast" in this verse anymore (not least because the MT says "throughout the territory of Israel" rather than anything to do with "borders").
• Checking concordances to dismiss unlikely translations in specific places: A good way of preventing yourself from being misled is to look up all instances of a word in Hebrew, Greek or Latin elsewhere in Bible translations through a concordance, and whether the given translation in the verse in question can be justified by comparing how it is translated elsewhere. E.g. the Hebrew and Greek words used in Exodus 19:16 and Exodus 20:18 are not translated as "thunder" and "(flashes of) lightning" anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible (Hebrew text and Septuagint) or the New Testament, but always mean a 'voice', a general 'sound' or a 'noise', and 'a (burning) torch' or 'lamp (of fire)' respectively. (Incidentally, that's why I have already provided entries on Genesis 15:17 and Judges 15:5 for comparison; it doesn't make sense to set "flashes of lighting" on fire, but "torches/lamps" may very well be lit on fire). The Latin Vulgate's translation of Exodus 19:16 with et ecce coeperunt audiri tonitrua, ac micare fulgura is seriously mistaken, and may well be the reason why Western translations of the Hebrew and Greek witnesses have been misled for centuries to render the source texts as "thunders and lightnings".
• Dealing with the bad influence of the Latin Vulgate: The previous example illustrates an important point: people, even some scholars, still seem to underestimate the importance of Latin as the language of transmission between the Hebrew and Greek source texts – through the Vulgate – to the late medieval and early modern European vernacular translations. In general, you will find that the Vulgate witnesses are the least reliable, and least likely to accurately reflect the source texts (which may be originally written in Hebrew or Greek, but certainly weren't written in Latin), but have had the most influence on Reformation-era Protestant translations (which in turn still influence modern Protestant translations, and even scholarly editions) and modern Catholic translations, particularly in Western countries. Showing where the Latin Vulgate differs from the Hebrew and Greek can help us understand where our modern translations are wrong, and also what the Hebrew and Greek texts really say and mean. Even though they cannot possibly reflect the original text, Latin Vulgate witnesses are therefore important to include in our overview of textual variants here.
• Checking ABP mis-links on Biblehub: Apart from the limitation that Apostolic Bible Polyglot on Biblehub.com (the main website I'm using for this article according to established Wikipedia practice) only links to words found in the New Testament and not elsewhere in Septuagint versions of the Hebrew Bible (or the Deuterocanonical books, for that matter), there are several mis-links to the wrong word. Usually the word you're looking for is one or a few entries further back or ahead, but sometimes it's not there at all. Always check which word you're looking up and which words Biblehub shows you.

More will be added later when relevant. Suggestions are welcome. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

editor has no understanding of textual criticism.

This article is perhaps the most concerning I have ever seen on Wikipedia. The editor seems to think that Greek translations of Hebrew words are a variant. They even think that removing the vowel points makes it a variant! My changes are extensive, so I will include, here, an explanation to why I made the changes. I'm sorry if it is long, but that's the editor's fault, not mine.

Genesis 1:1, see also Elohim and Names of God in Judaism § Elohim אֱלֹהִ֑ים‎, 'ĕ-lō-hîm ('[the] gods' or 'God') – MT (4QGenb) 4QGeng SP. Grammatically speaking, the word elohim is a masculine plural noun meaning "gods", but it is often translated as singular and capitalised as Elohim, meaning "God". ο θεός, 'the god' – ABP

This is not a variant. There is some discussion about whether or not the Hebrew text has been edited, but Elohim largely appears to be an irregular noun. This is common in Semitic languages. A good piece of evidence for this is 1Kgs 11:33. Again, the Septuagint simply translated a Hebrew word. That is not a variant.

Genesis 1:1, see also Heaven in Judaism הַשָּׁמַיִם‎, haš-šā-ma-yim, 'the heavens' – MT 4QGeng SP τὸν οὐρανὸν, 'the heaven' – LXX ABP

The Septuagint is Greek, not Hebrew. In Hebrew, "shamayim" is a plural noun in nature, and likely was an irregular noun, like it is for Elohim. In Greek, the word for "heaven", ouranos, was not plural. The LXX is not a textual variant simply because it is a translation.

Genesis 1:7 ויבדל‎, way·yaḇ·dêl, '[and he] divided' – MT (4QGenb) 4QGeng SP Damascus Pent. Codex καὶ διεχώρισεν ὁ θεὸς, 'and the god parted' – LXX ABP

This is the same thing. Dividing and parting is the same thing. Why in the world is this a variant?

Genesis 2:9 וָרָֽע‎, wā·rā'., 'and evil/bad.' – MT καὶ πονηροῦ, 'and evil/painful' – LXX LXXSwete ABP malum – Vg

Same thing. Just because the Greek word for evil can also mean "painful" does not make it a variant.

Genesis 2:13 אֶ֥רֶץ כּֽוּשׁ׃‎, 'e·reṣ kūš. ('[the] land of Cush.' or '[the] black land.') – MT τὴν γῆν Αἰθιοπίας., 'the land of Ethiopia.' – LXXSwete ABP

This is not a real variant. The LXX nearly always translates "Cush" as "Ethiopia". It simply shows how the Hebrews interpreted "Cush" at the time of the LXX was made.

Exodus 3[edit] Exodus 3:14 וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה‎ way-yō-mer ’ĕ-lō-hîm ’el-mō-šeh, ’eh-yeh ’ă-šer ’eh-yeh; ([And] the god/God said to Moses: "I am that/who I am",) – WLC καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν λέγων Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν· (and the god said to Moses, saying: "I am the being / the [one] who is/exists.") – LXXSwete καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν, λέγων, ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ Ὤν· (And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING) – Brenton και είπεν ο θεός προς Μωυσήν εγώ ειμι ο ων (And God said to Moses, I am the one being.) – ABP See also I Am that I Am, Burning bush, and Yahweh § Name.

This is a translation, not a variant. The editor literally thinks that capitalizing Greek letters will change the meaning. It does not. Greek was written in unical (all capitals) during the time of the LXX and the New Testament, the lower case letters became a late feature in the Greek alphabet. So was punctuation. If you were to capitalize all the "variants" and remove the punctuation, you would see that they are completely identical. It was the translators' decision to add or remove capitals or punctuation.

Compare Exodus 20:18. Exodus 20:2, see also I am the Lord thy God אָֽנֹכִ֖י֙ יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֑֔יךָ‎ ’ā-nō-ḵî Yah-weh ’ĕ-lō-he-ḵā, (I [am] Yahweh your god) – WLC Ἐγώ εἰμι Κύριος ὁ θεός σου (I am Lord the god of yours) – LXXSwete ἐγώ εἰμι Κύριος ὁ Θεός σου (I am Lord the God of yours) – Brenton εγώ ειμι κύριος ο θεός σου (I am lord the god of yours) – ABP

Translation, not a variant. The editor, again, thinks that turning the unicals into lower case will change the meaning.

Exodus 20:3, see also Thou shalt have no other gods before me לֹֽ֣א יִהְיֶֽה־לְךָ֛֩ אֱלֹהִ֥֨ים אֲחֵרִ֖֜ים עַל־פָּנָֽ֗יַ‎ lō yih-yeh-lə-ḵā ’ĕ-lō-hîm ’ă-ḥê-rîm ‘al-pā-nā-ya, (You shall not have other gods over/above/beside me) – WLC Οὐκ ἔσονταί σοι θεοὶ ἕτεροι πλὴν ἐμοῦ. (There shall not be to you other gods besides/except me) – LXXSwete Brenton ABP

Translation, not a variant.

Exodus 20:18 הַקֹּולֹ֜ת וְאֶת־הַלַּפִּידִ֗ם‎ haq-qō-w-lōṯ ’eṯ-hal-lap-pî-ḏim, (the voices/sounds/noises/thunders and the torches) – WLC την φωνήν και τας λαμπάδας (the voice/sound and the torches/lamps/lanterns) – LXXSwete Brenton ABP Compare Exodus 19:16

Translation, not a variant.

Leviticus 18:22, see also Leviticus 18 § Homosexuality וְאֶ֨ת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה תֹּועֵבָ֖ה הִֽוא׃‎ wə-’eṯ-zā-ḵār, lō ṯiš-kaḇ miš-kə-ḇê ’iš-šāh; tō-w-‘ê-ḇāh hî (And with a male, you shall not lie (down) on the beds of a woman/wife; he/it is an abomination.) – WLC ואת־זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה תועבה היא‎ wə-’eṯ-zā-ḵār, lō ṯiš-kaḇ miš-kə-ḇê ’iš-šāh; tō-w-‘ê-ḇāh hi (And with a male, you shall not lie (down) on the beds of a woman/wife; she/it is an abomination.) – SP καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός· βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν. (And with a man you shall not sleep in a (marriage-)bed of a woman/wife; because it is a detestable thing.) LXXSwete και μετά άρσενος ου κοιμηθήση κοίτην γυναικείαν βδέλυγμα γαρ εστι (And with a man you shall not sleep in a female (marriage-)bed, because it is a detestable thing.) ABP Cum masculo non commiscearis coitu femineo, quia abominatio est. (With a male you shall not intermingle according to the feminine intercourse, because it is an abomination.) – VgClement VgColunga&Turrado Compare Leviticus 20:13; Genesis 49:4.

Translations, not variants. The SP is the same as WLC, except the Hebrew vowel points are removed.

Leviticus 20:13 וְאִ֗ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִשְׁכַּ֤ב אֶת־זָכָר֙ מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֔ה תֹּועֵבָ֥ה עָשׂ֖וּ שְׁנֵיהֶ֑ם מֹ֥ות יוּמָ֖תוּ דְּמֵיהֶ֥ם בָּֽם׃‎ wə-’îš, ’ă-šer yiš-kaḇ ’eṯ-zā-ḵār miš-kə-ḇê ’iš-šāh, tō-w-‘ê-ḇāh ‘ā-śū šə-nê-hem; mō-wṯ yū-mā-ṯū də-mê-hem bām. (And a man, who sleeps with a male on the beds of a woman/wife, [they] have both done a detestable thing; [they] will be killed to die, [their] blood(guilt)s [are] on them.) – WLC ואיש אשר ישכב את־זכר משכבי אשה תועבה עשו מות יומתו שניהם דמיהם בם׃‎ wə-’îš, ’ă-šer yiš-kaḇ ’eṯ-zā-ḵār miš-kə-ḇê ’iš-šāh, tō-w-‘ê-ḇāh ‘ā-śū; mō-wṯ yū-mā-ṯū šə-nê-hem də-mê-hem bām. (And a man, who sleeps with a male on the beds of a woman/wife, [they] have done a detestable thing; both will be killed to die, [their] blood(guilt)s [are] on them.) – SP καὶ ὃς ἂν κοιμηθῇ μετὰ ἄρσενος κοίτην γυναικός, βδέλυγμα ἐποίησαν ἀμφότεροι· θανατούσθωσαν, ἔνοχοί εἰσιν. (And who ever slept with [a] male in the (marriage-)bed of a woman/wife, both have done a detestable thing; let [them] be put to death, they are liable/guilty.) – LXXSwete καὶ ὃς ἂν κοιμηθῇ μετὰ ἄρσενος κοίτην γυναικός, βδέλυγμα ἐποίησαν ἀμφότεροι· θανάτῳ θανατούσθωσαν, ἔνοχοί εἰσιν. (And whoever shall lie with a male as with a woman/wife, they have both wrought abomination; let them die the death, they are guilty.) – Brenton και ος αν κοιμηθή μετά άρσενος κοίτην γυναικός, βδέλυγμα εποίησαν αμφότεροι θανάτω θανατούσθωσαν ένοχοί εισιν. (And who ever slept with [a] male in the (marriage-)bed of a woman/wife, both have done a detestable thing; let [them] be killed to death, or [they] have done a detestable thing; let both be killed to death, they are liable/guilty.) – ABP Qui dormierit cum masculo coitu femineo, uterque operatus est nefas: morte moriantur: sit sanguis eorum super eos. (Whoever sleeps with a male according to the feminine intercourse, both have done a wrong: let them die the death: may their blood be upon them.) – VgClement VgColunga&Turrado Compare Leviticus 18:22; Genesis 49:4.

Translations, not variants.

בְּעַֽרְבֹ֣ות מֹואָ֔ב‎ bə-‘ar-ḇō-wṯ mō-w-’āḇ, (in the plains of Moab) – WLC בערבת מואב‎ bə-‘ar-wṯ mō-w-’āḇ, (in the evening/west of Moab) – SP ἐπὶ δυσμῶν Μωὰβ (on the west of Moab / upon the descent/sunset of Moab) – Brenton LXXSwete ABP The words עֲרָבָה‎ arabah/'aravá ("steppe", "desert", "plain"), עֶרֶב‎ érev ("evening", "sunset") and מַעֲרָב‎ ma'aráv ("west") are all etymologically related to each other, and maybe also cognates of words such as "Europe" (see Europe § Name) and "Arab" (see Etymology of Arab). See also Numbers 31:12.

This is a translator's decision, not a variant. The editor demonstrated this themselves.

Numbers 31:3 מִדְיָ֔ן‎ miḏ-yān, (Midian) – WLC Μαδιάν (Madian) – LXXSwete Brenton ABP

This is the Greek spelling for Midian. If you were to search the term in the LXX, you'd see that this is consistent throughout the whole translation.

Numbers 31:12 עַֽרְבֹ֣ת מוֹאָ֔ב‎ ‘ar-ḇōṯ mō-w-’āḇ, (the plains/desert/wilderness of Moab) – WLC Ἀραβὼθ Μωάβ, (Araboth Moab,) – LXXSwete Brenton αραβώθ Μωάβ ([the] wilderness of Moab) – ABP It is unclear whether the Hebrew original meant a general geographical feature ('plains/desert/wilderness') or a specific toponym (probably the region now known as "Arabah"), or whether Greek translators failed to translate מוֹאָ֔ב‎ ‘ar-ḇōṯ as a general geographical feature and turned it into a specific toponym, and hence the Arabah region got its name from this toponymisation. See also Numbers 22:1.

This is a translator's decision, not a variant. The editor demonstrated this themselves.

Numbers 31:15 וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֲלֵיהֶ֖ם מֹשֶׁ֑ה הַֽחִיִּיתֶ֖ם כָּל־נְקֵבָֽה׃‎ way-yō-mer ’ă-lê-hem mō-šeh; ha-ḥî-yî-ṯem kāl-nə-qê-ḇāh. (And Moses said to them: 'Have you kept alive all the women?') – MT וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֲלֵיהֶ֖ם מֹשֶׁ֑ה למה הַֽחִיִּיתֶ֖ם כָּל־נְקֵבָֽה׃‎ way-yō-mer ’ă-lê-hem mō-šeh; lá-ma ha-ḥî-yî-ṯem kāl-nə-qê-ḇāh. (And Moses said to them: 'Why have you kept alive all the women?') – SP καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Μωυσῆς Ἵνα τί ἐζωγρήσατε πᾶν θῆλυ; (And Moses said to them: 'Why did you take/catch/save alive every female?') – LXXSwete καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Μωυσῆς ινατί ἐζωγρήσατε πᾶν θῆλυ (And Moses said to them: 'Why did you take/catch/save alive every female?') – ABP Brenton

Translation, change of unicals and punctuation. No variants here, either.

Numbers 31:16 עַל־דְּבַר־פְּעֹ֑ור‎ ‘al-də-ḇar-pə-‘ō-wr; (in the incident of Peor) – MT ἕνεκεν Φογώρ (because of Phogor) – LXXSwete ABP Brenton Judges 15:5 וַיַּבְעֶר־אֵשׁ֙ בַּלַּפִּידִ֔ים‎ way-yaḇ-‘er-’êš bal-lap-pî-ḏîm, ([And when he] had burnt fire on the torches / set the torches on fire) – WLC καὶ ἐξέκαυσεν πῦρ ἐν ταῖς λαμπάσιν (and he inflamed/kindled fire in the torches/lamps) – LXXSwete APB

This is a translator's decision, not a variant. The editor demonstrated this themselves. 65.23.173.253 (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a WP:BOLD removal of text, but I will take it seriously.

First: I have only included examples wherein the meaning of the word or phrase used in the Hebrew and Greek texts seems to differ, or where the grammar differs despite meaning roughly the same. If it means (almost) exactly the same, of course there is no variant, and I won't bother to include it. A difference in meaning needs to be plausible for inclusion, I don't think I've made extreme stretches anywhere. Translations from various sources are provided and referenced, showing that I am not the only one translating these words differently in Greek and Hebrew.

On plural and singular matters, I think it is not unreasonable to mark these as a variant, because they may (and actually do) lead to different translations in English, and to an understanding of what the text is meant to say. For example, Gen 1:1 is translated as 'heaven' in the KJV, but as 'heavens' in virtually all modern translations, and that has everything to do with whether the translators based themselves on the LXX or the MT. Whether there are 'gods' or 'heavens' rather than just one 'god' and a single 'heaven' also has great theological implications. These are not to be brushed aside with an unsourced personal opinion that we should ignore a Hebrew/Greek plural/singular difference. If you can cite a reliable source which supports your point of view, I may have a reason to reconsider it. As it stands, this is a perfectly reasonable variant to keep.

Gen 1:7 is included not because of the verb, but because of the noun. There is no noun in Hebrew, but in Greek there is ὁ θεὸς. In all our articles on New Testament textual variants this counts as a variant. There is no reason why the Hebrew text couldn't have said something like אֱלֹהִ֑ים‎ ĕ-lō-hîm or אֵלִ֣י ’ê-lî to correspond with ὁ θεὸς. For scholars, the question then becomes whether the original text featured a noun or not, and therefore whether the MT or the LXX is closer to the original in this case. (The likely answer is that the MT is closer to the original phrasing of Gen 1:7; in New Testament variants, the word ὁ θεὸς or Ἰησοῦς is usually also added in later copies, apparently to make clear who is the subject of the sentence. Omission in such cases is less likely, as it serves no obvious purpose).

You may have a point about Gen 2:9. I mostly included it to compare Latin malum with the Greek and Hebrew, as malum has often been misunderstood as noun meaning "apple" (leading to paintings in which Adam and Eve eat an apple rather than just a general 'fruit' as the texts say) instead of an adjective having many different negative meanings. But this is mostly confined to the realm of interpretation and not so much textual criticism.

Cush/Ethiopia: whether Cush should always be identified with Ethiopia is debated. You yourself already admit 'The LXX nearly always translates "Cush" as "Ethiopia"', so sometimes it does not (e.g. the name Χοὺς exists in the LXX both as a personal name and as toponym in Genesis 10), and therefore we've got ourselves a variant. As the article Cush (Bible) points out: Cush is a Hebrew name that is possibly derived from Kash, the Egyptian name of Lower Nubia and later of the Nubian kingdom at Napata, known as the Kingdom of Kush. That is in a very different place then where the Ethiopian Empire and its preceding Kingdom of Aksum have been historically located. Whether toponyms or ethnonyms like these are to be considered synonymous or not (or that it depends on the context) is not up to textual critics, but interpreters; the textual critic just notes the difference, writes it down as a variant, and moves on.

On Exodus 3:14, you have completely missed the point. That Swete chooses to capitalise THE BEING is irrelevant (and frankly, in my opinion, unscholarly of him, as the original text provides no motive for doing so). Nor does punctuation matter here (on that, we agree). My concern here is purely grammatical: in Hebrew, the second verb is in the first person ('am'), but in Greek, there is no second verb: ὁ ὤν is a noun ('the being' or 'the one who is/exists') derived from the verb 'to be'. Unlike in Hebrew, which appears to feature circular reasoning ('I am who/that I am', repeating the proposition rather than explaining it), the Greek text appears to give new information about the subject's identity, as it is an indirect object. Whether this is saying the same thing in a different manner or not is up to interpreters; what matters to textual critics is that this text has a different grammar that may lead to a different meaning in Greek than Hebrew, and the question is which grammar was likely used in the now-lost original.

Exodus 20:2: No, it's not about capitalisation, it is about the fact that Hebrew uses the name יְהוָ֣ה "Yahweh" while Greek uses the title κύριος "Lord". The fact that many Jews and Christians have traditionally read, said or translated the name of the most prominent Israelite god Yahweh as "Lord" does not mean these words have the same meaning. There are dozens of places in the New Testament where κύριος does not (necessarily) mean 'lord', but can also mean 'master', 'sir', 'owner' and refer to a human being. However, יְהוָ֣ה is always the name of a specific deity and not a title that can also refer to a human being. Therefore, this is a textual variant, because it is not a 'translation'. If in the New Testament, one manuscript says κύριος, but another say θεὸς or Ἰησοῦς or δεσπότης or something, textual critics also recognise that as a textual variant, so there are no double standards here.

Exodus 20:3: I am basing this textual variant on the English translations given of the MT and LXX, and they show a clear difference:

• in Hebrew, thou/you is the subject, in Greek other gods is the subject.
• In Hebrew, the verb is 'to have', in Greek 'to be'.
• In Hebrew, the preposition is variously translated as 'before/over/above/beside', in Greek 'besides/except'. This is the most significant plausible difference in meaning, because the Hebrew text suggests henotheism (of all the gods that are to be worshipped, Yahweh must be worshipped the most), whereas the Greek text suggests monotheism (the Lord is the only god to be worshipped).

Exodus 19:16 and 20:18 must be studied side by side. There are similarities and differences, which are not always noted by translators. Although it is possible to argue that קוֹל qol in Hebrew means "thunder", it is very difficult to argue that φωνή phone (from which our modern word "telephone" comes) in Greek means anything other than "voice" or "sound". Try finding an example of that in the LXX or in the New Testament; you won't find it. These two verses are the subject of some scholarly controversy, as they have traditionally been translated as "thunder and lightning", but a closer comparison of the MT and LXX and how the words in question are translated everywhere else in the Bible reveals that this is probably a mistake. Therefore, there is a textual variant (unless, of course, the Hebrew word doesn't mean "thunder" either, in which case there isn't). I have provided reliable sources for everything, as usual.

Lev 18:22 and 20:13 quite obviously feature textual variants, even between Swete's LXX γυναικός and ABP's LXX γυναικείαν. For the meaning of the Hebrew, how SP and MT may be different, and how they may differ from the Greek and especially the Latin, you should read Wells 2020. Long story short, מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י miš-kə-ḇê uses the word "beds" (plural) in a metaphorical way to describe a "sexual domain", a moral boundary/space (which may well be compatible with the Greek word κοίτην, singular), but coitu describes an action (coming/going together, conferring, joining, meeting, convening), and is in no way meaning or etymologically related to nouns for "bed" or verbs for "lying down", and is therefore a grammatical textual variant. Incidentally, that Greek κοίτην ("(marriage-)bed")and Latin coitu ("intercourse") do not mean the same and are almost certainly false friends is easy to look up in a dictionary.

On Num 22:1 I am pretty confident that WLC and SP contradict each other, and that the Greek texts all follow SP rather than WLC. That is significant. I have added an etymological note explaining that the word 'plains' in WCL and the word 'evening/west' in SP are cognates, but that in the given context they cannot be understood to have the same meaning. Further evidence for this is given by the fact that every single English translation that is based on the WLC/MT translates the word as 'plains', while the Greek word δυσμῶν cannot be translated as 'plains'. Therefore, the difference between WLC and SP is a textual variant, while the Greek texts appear not to differ from SP. Translators are not to blame for a difference that exists between two Hebrew texts.

You are probably correct about 31:3, so we'll leave that one out.

Num 31:15: No, it has nothing to do with translation, capitalisation/uncials or punctuation.

• First: omission. The word למה lá-ma "why" appears in SP but not in WLC. That is significant. Compare it to when Jesus on the cross says Eli lama sabachtani ("My God, why have you forsaken me?" Matt 27:46, Mark 15:34, Psalms 22:2); if you omit "why" from the sentence, its meaning completely changes. No longer is the question why something has happened, but whether it even happened in the first place. This is the case in WLC, but not in SP, which has concluded that the event indeed took place, but wonders why.
• Second: grammar. there is an obvious plural/singular difference between Hebrew/Greek: 'all the women' / 'every female' may mean the same, but it's a grammatical textual variant nonetheless.
• Third: verbs. 'keeping alive' someone is something else than 'taking/catching/saving alive' someone. 'keeping alive' can only be done after 'taking/catching/saving alive'. It's basic logic: you can't keep something/someone before you got it/them. According to the Hebrew text, in combat, women are to be taken captive until the combat is over, and then to be executed; according to the Greek text, women are to be killed in the middle of combat. These verbs have different meanings and are not interchangeable, and therefore represent a textual variant. The English Bible translations reflect this, I'm not making this up.

Num 31:16: the noun דָבָר dabar does not appear in Greek, therefore represents a textual variant.

Judges 15:5: the most important difference is the grammatical tense: the Hebrew is in pluperfect, while the Greek is in simple past. This changes the meaning, and therefore represents a variant.

In conclusion, I disagree with almost all of your decisions except two - Gen 2:9 and Num 31:3 - and therefore I will revert them all except these two. I think it is you who doesn't understand textual criticism very well yet, and mistakes it for interpretation (including apologetics), which is a different field. In textual criticism, one can note a variant that doesn't ultimately change the meaning of a sentence (or the wider story, for that matter), but is still significant for other reasons in trying to establish the original form of the text. Although nobody really doubts that the Hebrew Bible was originally written in, well, Hebrew, there are places where the LXX or even the SP sometimes represents an earlier form of the text than the MT (WLC), and therefore one cannot simply assume that whatever the LXX says is always a 'translation' of whatever the WLC says. If you're interested in learning more, I would encourage you to do more reading, because there is a lot to discover for people who really like to know how this stuff works. You're welcome to give a further response to my comments here. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)