What is the best english translation of the septuagint?

Who cares what the JPS version does? They incorrectly translate things. Do you seriously trust them?

The KJV translates the original Hebrew of Psalm 22:16 correctly. It also translation Psalm 2:12 correctly, whereas the septuagint and all of its versions remove prophecy about the Son from Psalm 2:12.

You have zero.

I guess that would be fine unless you didn't trust jews.

there is no existant original hebrew. the hebrew was made up in 10th century by a bunch of rabbis translating the aeptuagint and changing it where neccesary

I don't trust the septuagint because the mosaic law in there makes it seem ok to have an abortion

Ok.

I would also add, this would be very unusual behavior for lions. That is something more common to dogs. David would be familiar with lion attacks, who seize their targets by the throat and neck or suffocate them by covering their nose. Chazars will believe anything that attacks Jesus, though.

What's clear is there is no real difference between the LXX and Masoretic in your example. Whereas in the Masoretic a simple change resulted in a new, garbled meaning. Guess which one the rabbis support? The wrong one. What a surprise.

Please don't talk about things you don't know about, that's totally false.

There is a significant difference – the Septuagint has "attend to me", the Masoretic doesn't, and Jesus doesn't quote it

Please tell me what is wrong about my statement. I actually want to know, but this is the conclusion I have come to unless you've got some other explaination:

Gonna post what I said in another thread:

You mean in the original Hebrew, the modern day rabbinic synagogue came up with a garbled and incorrect translation which you apparently trust as accurate when it isn't an accurate translation of the Hebrew text.

I personally don't want to use, nor will I ever recommend, a translation that removes the prophecy of the Son from Psalm 2:12, like the septuagint does.

Psalm 2:12
Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

LXX Psalm 2:12
Accept correction, lest he be angry, and ye should perish from the righteous way: whensoever his wrath shall be suddenly kindled, blessed are all they that trust in him.

...

It's not necessarily correct. I know it's great to have such an awesome rendering of "Son" there, but the problem shows up earlier in verse 7:

"Thou art my son. This day have I begotten thee."

The word for "son" here is beni (ben). This is Hebrew. In verse 12, it's bar, but bar is Aramaic. This Psalm and NO Psalm was ever written in Aramaic. They come from David's era especially…and the first temple era in general (i.e. before the Exile.. before Jews actually adopted Aramaic).

I'm the user who pointed out the wrongness of "like a lion" in Psalm 22 early in this thread. I'm pretty much pointing out the same problem here as I did with Psalm 22. The word "lion" is already used in Psalm 22 as a different word, so the different word for lion placed elsewhere doesn't really make sense.

Same goes for "Bar" here. Why would the Psalmist use an out of place/out of era Aramaic word for "Son" when they just used it as "Ben" in verse 7? Additionally, what motivation would the Septuagint have anyways? It predates any of the controversies surrounding Judaism and Christian interpretations. It wasn't trying to "de-prophesy" intentionally. They were neutral Jews who somehow chose a complete different rendering.

Lastly, if it was so wrong, that makes 1500 years of our church almost entirely wrong. Because Jerome rendered it like the LXX as well! So you have the entire Eastern and Western church for 1500 years rendering it wrong? That's tragic if that's the case!

The reason the Reformers decided on this was because the Syriac rendered it as Son. They were the only isolated ancient church with this reading. But I think it's precisely because they were Aramaic speakers themselves, and when the translator saw "Bar", he naturally assumed it was his own language form of Son.

Then the Reformers took that and ran with it. Because, admittedly, it sounds pretty awesome.

… and at least in spirit, "Kiss the Son" is definitely the right thing to do anyhow: You might as well call that "scripture" anyhow. The Holy Spirit would say it anyways. But is it what the Hebrew originally meant? And why did the LXX choose what they did? I think this is a fair question.

I still need to see what Codex Alexandrinus says for the verse. Can't anybody find it?

KJV
KJV

KJV is the masoretic text, not septuagint

I don't know of any public photos of it, but it's readings were collated in Rahlf's LXX (which is a critical edition). It seems it's been a universal reading for some time though, as St. Jerome knew about it in the LXX too.

Qumran would provide us with the greatest insight into the oldest Hebrew reading, but it appears our Lord has a great sense of humor, as Psalm 2 breaks off right at the 9th verse.

One thing that might resolve matters. The Jews say Bar (Hebrew/non Aramaic) could have multiple meanings. It could mean "purity", but for some reason that escapes me, it's applied to the Torah (as the height of "purity" on earth). So maybe this explains the LXX reading in their day (and Jerome) which says "embrace correction" or "embrace discipline" (correction referring to Torah and the word for "Kiss" is applied to "homage" in general.. so "embrace" works here).

But again, in light of our Christian understanding, we can still feel confident about "Son".. as Jesus is the Word Incarnate, and a far greater expression of purity and Torah on earth than the Jews thought at first. Kiss the Teaching/Kiss the Son. At least I can rationalize it this way. I like the KJV rendering, but I think the LXX might captured an original understanding lost to us somehow.

Ok couple things here.
All that matters is it's correct translation and accurately reflecting the original language source.
Couple things here. First off, you are probably confusing "Aramaic" with Mishnaic Hebrew, as most modern scholars do. They think they can get a fuller understanding of this script through the corpus of the Targums. Yet this is nothing more than the built-in modern day recognition of Talmudic Judaism, as "Mishnaic Hebrew" of the later centuries was used to write the Mishna, the core of what became the Talmud. This adds confusion. So this is the first mistake.

Secondly, the existence of the (authentic) syriac-aramaic script in the actual Bible is well accounted for in multiple places. But even more striking is the fact that all translations correctly render the same word as "son" in Proverbs 31:2. Furthermore, those translations that fail to correctly translation Psalm 2:12 will add a footnote denoting that "the Hebrew is uncertain" which amounts to an admission that they do not understand the grammar. Similar to how all footnotes detailing "alternate readings" are admissions that they do not understand, raising the question of why they published something that they knew could be a corruption and not true!

Ok well in both cases you see the wrong problem because you accept modern, "Judeo-christian" scholarship which accepts modern Judaism and their translations as legitimate. Therefore you misunderstand what the original language actually says in both Psalm 22:16 and Psalm 2:12.
Same reason God used it in Proverbs 31:2. Also same reason God switched between language in Genesis 31:47, in Jeremiah 10:11, in six chapters in Daniel, etc.
The original Septuagint which was the first five books of Moses would have had their motivations, and Origen's cadre with his Hexaplar Septuagint would have had his own motivations, namely to back-translate parts of the New Testament into his translation to legitimize it. It's similar to how someone have produced a "book of Enoch" and cannibalized the real prophecy out of Jude v. 14-15.
You may be confusing the original translation which was of the five books of Moses with the later translation which we now have from Origen. He had motivations.
Not if you remember that baptists were never successfully removed from the earth.
No because first off nobody was forced to use the Vulgate until Council of Trent. There were numerous Vetus Latina, Gothic, etc. witnesses and original language witnesses that had the correct rendering and meaning. What's really unhinged though is to think that the whole world at some point forgot what the Old Testament said (and they have nothing but one admittedly messed up translation) which is essentially what you are saying. This was never the case except perhaps in certain circles of course.
In the case of Psalm 2:12, it's probably a case of flawed scholarship. They simply didn't have what it took to make a correct translation, similar to how someone working on the Hexaplar Septuagint tried to change Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 to say "75" instead of "70" but they forgot about Deuteronomy 10:22 which still says 70. It's just bad scholarship. I'm not knocking you just saying get a good translation. Nothing personal.

You're just being needlessly insulting. How is it "modern" to quote the Dead Sea Scrolls. They clearly have different words than the Masoretic - words that dismiss the MT's "like a lion" and support the prophetic "they pierced my hands and feet" like the LXX. It's not merely a matter of understanding, but actual differences in the Qumran text.

I'm doing the exact opposite of embracing modernism - by even going beyond the Masoretic, which is just late Medieval and to BC era texts. And I have ZERO trust in Jews of the medieval era as being trustworthy. They are a cursed race ("His blood be on us and on our children") and lack both understanding, and lack the Spirit giving them ANY grace outside our Lord's community at the moment. They are open to demons and all forms of malice, as the Talmud demonstrates. You, on the other hand, are arbitrarily holding up the MT as some document lacking blemish and giving these people more benefit of the doubt than they deserve. I doubt you trust anyone else outside the church with the most precious of artifacts. So why would you trust them? They couldn't even be trusted to embrace their King, and killed him instead.

I'm not modern. I'm an absolute outlier for saying any of this. Completely old school. ;)

This is also silly. Septuagint copies were also found at Qumran. It has nothing to do with Origen. And even a Jew in the 1st century (Josephus) reflected a Hebrew similar to Qumran and the LXX. You need to drop the Origen meme. It's as silly as the Constantine meme that Baptists can't over either.

You said the "Jews actually adopted Aramaic" after they were exiled. But this is exactly what modern scholars say, when they start looking at the 3rd century mishnaic Targums (which are written in mishnaic hebrew) and saying it represents actual syriac-aramaic.

So let's recap. The scholars of today say that the mishnaic hebrew in the targums equals "aramaic" which is what the Old Testament contained and that all "Jewish scholarship" attached to the Mishnaic targums can be used to interpret the Old Testament where applicable. These same scholars then produce flawed translations based on concepts they get from modern Judaism.

Now you are here repeating what they say about where "Aramaic" came from, and you are agreeing with them (and Judaism) about how certain passages like Psalm 22:16 were meant to be translated.

Good, neither do I. But we don't get the original language source that the KJV represents from them. The word of God has never been lost. It has witnesses in Vetus Latina, Gothic, etc. and original language witnesses at all times.

No, what's really unhinged is to think that everyone forgot the Old Testament and the world was collectively looking for some unsaved person to find it, such as Origen. This was never the case, except in certain circles.

Who, Christians? Or God?

Josephus and others were referring to the first five books. I still don't see where I've been proven wrong. Still, I appreciate your efforts, it allowed me to make some good points here.

Thread verse:

Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
Psalm 2:12

Oh yes it is, read St. Justin Martyr and St. Clement of Alexandria, they both go over it in their "Dialogue with Trypho" and "Against Judaizers" respectively.

Hmm, I didn't know those guys lived in the 9th century AD.

Can you summarize? You've got my curious enough to put this on my reading list. But in the meantime can you share some quotes or something?

Its a bunch of guys that lived before the 9th century AD. I dont know how they could've commented on something the Masoretes made.