"Masoretic Text versus Septuagint: A Translator’s Perspective" by Adam Boyd 

📚 Looking for books that will strengthen your love-faith relationship with King Jesus and give you solid footing in a shaky world? Look no further-check out our bookstore - strengthtostrength.org/s2s-books/. We ship these books all over the world! 🗺

What is often overlooked is the Hebrew used for the Septuagint was a much older paleo Hebrew than the Masoretic.

This presentation deserves more views. Great information, well presented. Neither my undergraduate degree in Biblical studies, nor my seminary degree dealt with any of this information - I had to find this out, piece meal over the years from various books, lectures and the like. Thanks!

There are mainly two versions of the Septuagint text in use today: Henry Swete's and Alfred Rahlfs'. Swete's is a diplomatic edition, reproducing the text of one manuscript and putting the variants in the text-critical notes (or alternative readings in an appendix). Rahlfs' is a critical edition, amending the text variant-by-variant. Thing is, like the modern UBS/NA critical New Testament, Rahlfs' uses almost exclusively Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus. What I would love to see is a push for a Byzantine Textform Majority Text Septuagint. We don't have a shortage of Byzantine manuscripts to use, and much can be derived from the Byzantine lectionaries themselves: Prophetologion (containing Old Testament readings for the whole liturgical year), the Menaion, the Triodion, and the Pentecostarion. Sadly, the current edition of the Septuagint published by the Apostoliki Diakonia of the Church of Greece is just a mildly edited Rahlfs' Septuagint. The Old Testament never got the "Patriarchal Text" treatment, as it should have. And once we have a Byzantine Majority Text Septuagint, we could theoretically reverse engineer a Septuagintal Hebrew Bible. Collating all the pre-Masoretic Hebrew manuscript evidence we have (including the version from Origen's Hexapla, as well as the Judean and DSS manuscripts), we could come to a Hebrew "majority text" baseline, and then edit and amend from there, selecting variant readings (where they exist) that conform the closest to the Byzantine Septuagint text. Where no such Hebrew variant exists, I am not opposed to conjectural amendations (the Septuagint reading came from somewhere). Once you have that, you have a Hebrew text that conforms to the Greek Bible as it was received by and preserved through the Christian Church through the ages. And this Byzantine Septuagintal Hebrew Bible could then serve as the textual basis for Old Testament translations and revisions going forward.

I am currently studying the origins of the Bible. This video helped me have some better understanding. Thank you Adam

I was very surprised to hear Adam not mention in the answer at 1:15:28 that Hebrew “alma” DOES ALSO “mean” virgin…in the sense that culturally, it typically referred to a young UNMARRIED woman, who obviously WAS a virgin culturally speaking…in fact I believe my Hebrew professor taught us there was indeed NO OTHER more SPECIFIC word that even COULD have been been used to specify virgin, alma was all they had! So it’s tricky, they didn’t have a specific word indicating only sexual chasteness apart from marital status and youth as we do…therefore alma does multiple duty, sort of meaning young and or unmarried woman and or virgin all at the same time, depending on context and other factors…

I have been researching numerous topics over many years. this is without a doubt one of the best presentations of a topic I've ever seen. thank you so much for the detail, clarity and fairness it was handled in, and for great questions.

I loved this. This was so enlightening. Thank you for sharing your insight into these issues. I am 100% behind your idea of producing a best of both worlds edition.

Super super helpful and informative! Thank you.

Thanks for sharing your work on Genesis and psalms. God Bless!

thank you so much for this video. the subject matter is what i am researching at this time.

Thanks a lot for this video. Thankyou Adam Boyd for sharing these valuable insight.

Very interesting. Thank you!

Excellent! Thank you Lord for this video!!

so so well done

This was really interesting and well done. A new, thoughtful, "best of both worlds" Old Testament translation would be a wonderful gift to the Christian community.

I enjoyed this video very much. I came to the conclusion myself that I should read both the LXX & the MT. I’m glad you didn’t tear down the LXX or the MT.

can you /anyone tell which is a good version to read a masoretic text in english even if it is not 100% masoretic ? Thankyou.

At 22:30 ... What's odd is that in other places where סָבַךְ (Sabek) is present in the Masoretic, the Septuagint translates it to things like, as in Nahum 1:10, *σμῖλαξ* _περιπλεκομένη_ which would means something like _twisted or tangled_ *bindweed.* Or, in other Greek texts, σμῖλαξ has also variously been used to convey a *Yew tree* which is evident from parallel Latin renderings of the term, as *Taxus.* No, I didn't know this off hand... ha... I'm getting this info from LSJ + Lewis & Short But it's curious that the LXX translates the Hebrew term just fine elsewhere. And the word ‎סָבַךְ is common enough, and the Abraham & Isaac story famous enough, that it's a bit puzzling that there should be any trouble translating the term into Greek in Gen22:13 - then again, maybe the plant was common enough that there existed an aural cognate to Sabek between multiple languages at the time of translation. Interesting.

How about Nicholas King's translation of the Septuagint, now available from the Bible Society? Protestant scholars seem unaware of this translation.

I think on the Genesis chronology we should probably go with the LXX, since it agrees with Josephus and the Samaritan Oentateuch.

This finally resolved the Masoretic Text vs Septuagint battle in my mind😇

Excellent content. I would have loved to ask Adam why translators go with Deut 32 MT when it so obviously needs to go with the LXX. (The catch here is that unlike other NT references to the OT,in Heb 1:6 the author explicitly says he's quoting the OT ...but, that quote isn't there in the OT MT. Its only found in Deut 32 lxx)

Question. I think I heard from the video the Dead Sea text as masoretic. I understand both the masoretic text from the 11th century as well by as the Dead Sea texts are written in Hebrew, but should both the Death Sea text and the 11th century text be named masoretic?

Great presentation! One small note - with the comments he made on Psalm 2 (min 46:00), it should be noted that “bar,” rather than the more common “ben,” is used elsewhere in the Old Testament to mean “son” without dispute (Proverbs 31:2). Also, the Masoretic text “kiss the Son” preserves the Hebrew parallel structure of the psalm, which starts with the nations rebelling against the Lord and his Son (verse 7), so the concluding resolution should involve both the Lord and His Son. It would be great if Adam would adopt the same “best of both worlds”/ eclectic approach with the Alexandrian and Byzantine texts for the NT! :)

I have a question for Adam Boyd. Does he have an email for questions from someone not wanting to write it on here?

Thanks so much Adam Boyd! I have been getting my feet wet with the Septuagint and you have provided the towel! Sad that this video doesn't have a million views and rising.

I would like to ask if Adam or anyone who might know - Is there any way to know how close the various LXX versions we have today are to what existed in the day of Jesus?

Is there a full list of differences between the LXX and MT anywhere?

I like Dr Boyd's "Best of Both Worlds" concept, but I'd like notes indicating agreement with existing Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts as well!

Very enlightening. I think a corrected mt is valuable, corrected from the point of view of the New Testament.

Hold on a second Adam, you think it is not very likely that someone purposely changed the text and then got others to do so also because they wanted to preserve the original text. And therefore the group review would eliminate the change. IF that were the case the an error would be harder to pass on and yet we know it happened. What is more probable: An intentional change which then has the force of the one who changed it to keep it changed and teach others to make the change . OR An accidental change is missed and then copied over and over. We know the 2nd happened, but then we also know the 1st easily could have happened and is actually more likely(intention will alway be more probable than chance) but those changes would be harder to detect because the one who changed it would make it make sense as best they could within the text. So we wouldnt find the intentional changes as easily as the accidental, making it seem as if there were no intentional changes.

"best of both worlds" so like people have been doing since the begining of translating the Bible.

This was very good. I would also like to bring to your attention the existence of the Apostolic Bible polyglot which has a lexicon and concordance, all using strongs numbers.

I am currently writing the Thesis for my first Doctorate (Th.D). My topic is "The Influence of the Septuagint on the New Testament Authors" I am finishing up the reading on my two last research books. I have a question that I have not seen answered (yet) in my research. Many scholars believe that the Septuagint (there is not just ONE Septuagint, even the ancient ones, but several iterations of it) believe, because of the textual variants between the MT and the OG (Old Greek) and assert that some of the OG manuscripts may be based on an earlier Hebrew text which would pre-date the earliest MT manuscripts. Do you have any information regarding this question? Is there a possibility or probability that the OG is closer to another/other Hebrew manuscript(s) than the MT which we currently possess, upon which all Modern English Translations rely, i.e. the Critical Text?

The phrase mentioned at 24:50 mins "For the end, concerning her who inherits", could very well be a reference to the church at the end times who will inherit eternal life/heaven/promised land. And most of David's psalms are anyways prophetic and are about the end times. Take Psalm 2 for example which mentions how at the end times the whole world would wage war against Jesus (God and His anointed/Messiah) when He comes. Same confirmed in Revelations Ch 19 (esp 19:19).

@40:00 with Gen. 4:26 isn't the word for "people" actually singular? Kind of an important point.

Obviously Genesis 5:25-26 is a scribe error of one score. The begetting ages: {Genesis 11:11-26} Shem: MT (*100 years), LXX (100 years), SP (100 years)na Arphaxad: MT (35 years), LXX (**135 years), SP (135 years) Kainan: LXX (°130 years)? Shelah: MT (30 years), LXX (**130 years), SP (130 years) Eber: MT (34 years), LXX (**134 years), SP (134 years) Peleg: MT (30 years), LXX (**130 years), SP (130 years) Reu: MT (32 years), LXX (**132 years), SP (132 years) Serug: MT (30 years), LXX (**130 years), SP (130 years) Nahor: MT (29 years), LXX (**79 years), SP (79 years) Terah: MT (*70 years), LXX (**70 years), SP (70 years) Terah is twice the age as his forefathers when he becomes a father. This looks to be evidence of corruption. Rule: (MT) = Masoretic Text (☆minus 650 yrs and 130 yrs - Kainan/m) (LXX) = Greek Septuagint (SP) = Samaritan Penteteuch (°) = Luke 3:36 second witness (*) = The MT, the LXX, and the SP are in agreement. (**) = Josephus is in agreement with the LXX and SP. (na) = Josephus does not give a witness. ^ Flavius Josephus was a first century historian. 'Antiquities of the Jews' "The things narrated in the sacred Scriptures, are, however, innumerable, seeing that they embrace the history of *5,000* years..." (Ant. 1:13) Josephus claimed to use *Hebrew* text in his recitation of Genesis and other OT books. (Against Apion, 1:1, 54; Ant. 1:5, 9:208, 10:218) Rabbinic deflation theory (after 70 A.D.): a), Motive....Chrono-Messianism b), Means and Athority....Rabbi Akiba 40-137 A.D. c), Opperatunity....Judaism had been reduced to one Pharisaic sect after 70 A.D. -->There is no unbiased reliable second witness to the complete time-line of the MT before Eusebius in the 4th century A.D. Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in *a good old age* an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people. (175 years) {Genesis 25:8} ^ By MT Chronology this statement would be untrue. According to the MT, Eber was still alive and lived to be a good old age of 464 years, more than twice the age of Abraham. Shem lived to be 600 years old, yet according to the MT he only dies 25 years before Abraham death. (The Jews also falsely claim that he is the high priest of Salem, Melchizedek in a vain attempt to discredit Christ claim of being a priest in the order of Melchizedek.)

Can you speak to why the Greek term "ekklesia" continues to be mistranslated as "church?" I would be greatly bothered by this compromise if I were in your profession.

This was really interesting and I would have liked to be live on the call able to ask questions, but I noticed that there were no women. Looking over your website it seemed apparent that you have separate ministries for men and women, which definitely has its place!, but it would be nice if things like this that concern and interest all could be for all…

brilliant thanks. one thing i learned from textual criticism is humans make mistakes or possibly deliberate changes, and it is hard or even impossible to know why in most cases. studying textual criticism leads to more questions rather than answering them. to learn the actual bible someone has to read it- studying greek or hebrew does not help.

I have Charles Thomson Septuagint and i really enjoy it

At 56:30 onwards you ask what the reason for the different dating of the chronology of Genesis 11 is. The Septuagint has an extra 650 years in the chronology and is almost certainly the correct version. There are three reasons for this. The first reason is that The Samaritan version of the Hebrew text, and Josephus agree with the Septuagint. That is 3 versions agree with each other against only one (MT). The second reason is that the dates of when the first child is born fit into a simple pattern that is consistant with each other in the Septuagint rather than in the MT. In the MT the parents mostly outlive their children only where the texts differ. The parents almost always die before their children only in the Septuagint. The third reason is that with the extra 650 years there is plenty of time to build the pyramids. The shorter time frame of the MT makes it impossible to build the pyramids. There would not be enough people at the time frame to build the pyramids with typical reproduction rates of people for the MT time frame. Also, there is sedimentary rock (with fosils in it) under the pyramids which would have been laid down during the flood making the pyramids having to be built after the flood. The pyramids also do not have any water damage to them from the flood. I have heard that the reason for the two different texts is that the MT was delibererately altered in the early Christian centuries because the Jews wanted to say that Melchizedek was the same person as Shem. If Melchizedek was the same as Shem then he would not be a different order of priesthood to Levi because Shem was the ancestor of Levi. They had to alter the text to make this article of faith believable. They wanted to do this because the New Testament book of Hebrews says that Jesus was a priest after the order of Melchizedek (which is a quote from the Old Testament). Altering the text made Shem still alive during the time of Abraham. The Jews wanted to prove that statement wrong and so prove that Jesus was not the priest after the order of Melchizedek and so was not the Messiah. There are videos on this subject here on RU-vid explaining what I am saying more clearly and fully than what I am doing here e.g. the interesting 32 minute video : ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-VI1yRTC6kGE.html. The extra Cainan in the Septuagint at 40:29 onwards was also not included in the best manuscripts. See the same video above at 18:45 onwards where it shows that a number of older manuscripts and Josephus do not include it. It is nice to get all these details right with a little detective work.

I like that we have the Samaritan P., the Septuagint (and we know Jesus and the Apostles quoted out of that), and the Masoretic. As the Bible teaches, you need 2 or more witnesses to establish a thing.

In Job 1:6 in the Septuagint it says, “And it came to pass on a day, that behold, the angels of God came to stand before the Lord, and the devil came with them.” But in the masoretic it says, “Now it fell upon a day, that the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.” The Septuagint uses “angels of god” but the masoretic text uses “sons of god”. Which one is the more accurate translation?

The speaker has forgotten a very important fact: WE DO NOT HAVE THE "ORIGINAL" AUTOGRAPHS from which such judgments can be made with confidence about which OT is "better," or "more accurate." Therefore, it does not make any sense to speak of an "original text" which we have never seen, never possessed, and never will. All we have are copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies. Many, many copies. Scholarly opinions about superior readings are derived from textual comparisons and tedious cross checking of cross references, and perhaps some historical archeological material. The speaker is neglecting to take into sufficient account the immense span of time separating the textual production of the LXX and that of the MT: -250 vs. +1000. Now, it is admitted that, as the speaker mentioned, this immense head start of the writing of the LXX over the MT alone does not necessarily make the LXX a "superior" text. However, surely the time differential must have been an important factor in the textual corruption outlined here. What text do scholars use to check up on the accuracy of the MT? There could be a number of them, but the LXX is almost always a go-to source, even if its accuracy cannot be ABSOLUTELY vouched for. One more thing. Although it is to be granted that the "original" Hebrew text of the OT would be, far and away, the most desirable, we simply DO NOT HAVE IT, not even in the MT. Therefore, the mere fact that the MT is written in Hebrew does not necessarily qualify it as a "controlling text," or "base text" as Protestant and Catholic Bibles have it. It could very well be that the LXX is the more accurate and trustworthy of the two, even though it is written in Koine Greek, and even though it, too, has its own problems. The NT is written is Greek and not Hebrew, or even Aramaic, but nobody seems to have problem with that. To conclude, I think we are stuck with the both of them working in tandem (ESV Study Bible frequently resorts to the LXX for comparative guidance). As things stand now, the LXX is sort of like DOS on a computer. It operates in the background where nobody sees it working, but it's there, and it's important, and we will use it to shed light on the text when reading gets tough.

Also recommend the book "When God spoke Greek" by Timothy Michael Law.

46:00 'Kiss the son' is an act of being subservient to His Lordship. Its like in the olden times where people used to kiss the hand of the king to show their subserviency. An act like 'kiss the son' is a perfect allusion in my opinion in the context of this psalm. It has depth to it. The act 'Kiss the Son'- It doesnt confine to just correcting one's ways (as written in lxx) but more than it means surrenderence to His Lordship ( as opposed to the kings n people waring against the Lord in the beginning of the pslam).

Why no mention of the NETS?

I’m wondering if there is wisdom or folly to have a translator do their own textual criticism. His main (and perhaps only?) rule of textual criticism seems to be “the easier reading”, which also happens to make his job easier. While a sane reading should be a major pillar in textual criticism, it seems to take on too large a space here.

What if a WRONG verse from LXX has been used for millennia to back up a WRONG theology? Like the Paul's "a hang one is cursed". MT has nothing of that meaning - neither in Hebrew text nor in any Jewish translations. Deuteronomy 21:23 means "the hanging is cursing God", that is not a person but the act itself is as cursing God.

At 0:21:33 the math for both is 969 years for Methuselah. Maybe the math with others is where it doesn't work?

The Masoretic text is very corrupt in the genealogies in Genesis 11. There are 650 years missing, and this causes a lot of problems. The Septuagint is more accurate.

kiss the son means alliance or subjection to the king. maybe its on the back of the hand here

37:40 there is no Greek word for husband. This is a mistake. The Septuagint says the same as the Masoretic text

Error by the presenter at 20:48 - LXX says 187 in Berlin Genesis Papyri 911(late 3rd cent. AD), Papyri 961 (4th cent. AD), Codex Cottonianus, Codex Coislinianus and over a dozen miniscules, but because Codex Alexandrinus dated to the 5th century says 167 (codex Vaticanus is missing most of Genesis), everyone calls LXX wrong. Julius Africanus (221/222 AD) in his Chronographiae has his Fragment 16a dating the LXX's begetting age of Methuselah to 187. Eusebius' (260-340) record also places multiple extant manuscripts of the LXX with the 187/782 numbers. Jerome (340-420) also records that numerous extant LXX manuscripts have it as 187.

Well... Genesis 4:26 could have very well meant to convey that since Seth just had a son, Enosh, that Seth had hoped his son would (also) call upon the name of the LORD. I.E. walk upright and be of faith, and praise God. A father's wish for his newborn son. That makes the most sense to me of all, actually.

The word in Hebrew לו does not meant not, it means to him.

Hebrew “presumed” to underlie the M text… massive presumption.

Both return again

47:27 The MT of Psalm 8:2 makes even less sense when you consider the Hebrew name of Psalms is "Praises". How can the MOUTH of an infant "establish strength?" The LXX is clearly the correct reading here

The Catholic Church holds the Deuterocanonical books as Inspired by God and equal to the rest of the Bible. The question is who decides what is God's Word and what is not? There is no inspired table of contents and the Catholic Church at the Council of Rome in 380 in fact defined the 27 books of the NT, which is accepted by all.

Thank you very much. Very interesting to understand that there is no such thing as THE BIBLE. Of course I still love the King James Bible, but God did not give a prophecy about the ISBN number 🙂. However it is also interesting to see that the differences between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint are not as big as some people think they are. God did preserve his word, this is still true. It seems whenever there are differences in the text, the original text can be reconstructed mostly by just applying logic. This gives me a good feeling about the situation 😇.

Also for Psalm 22:16, LXX and DSS match.

It was cool to learn how translators think but I’m definitely here to learn truth, not translator best practices

The reason for the difference between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text dating stems from wanting to disprove that Jesus is the Christ. You need to look look at the whole date line in the LXX and see the flood is different dated.

38:20 Depends on the translation, this is not 4th Century LXX.

It is known beyond any reasonable doubt why the Masoretic text deletes 650 years from the chronology. The Jews wanted to say that Seth was one in the same as Melchizedek because the New Testament states Jesus was from the order of Melchizedek meaning Jesus did not have to be from the Aaronic priesthood. The Jews tried to confuse the reader so they could deny Jesus was the Christ. There is no doubt they intentionally changed it.

When you do a side by side comparrison you can see Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Septuagint. About 20% of the Masoretic and Septuagint match, but thats about it.

I would prefer septuagint most of the time because corruption is unacceptable, even if it sounds better or more flowy. Exception is when the septuagint makes a clear mistake like in genesis 26:32

50:35 The papists call the deutero-canon inspired.

Around 24:37: "It's quite unclear what 'the end' means....it is basically in my mind, nonsensical." NOT in the Eastern Orthodox Church it's not! Sometimes it pays to see what some of the other denominations have to say about the LXX and its interpretation. According to the notes in the Orthodox Study Bible, "Ps 5 is similar to Ps 4, again emphasizing the end (v. 1). Christ is the end concerning the inheritance (v. 1) which is the Church and the world to come (Creed). For Christ and the inheritance are the end to which God's eternal purpose is moving (Eph 3:11). And in His prayer to the Father, whom He calls Lord and King and God (vv. 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13), He is teaching the Church how to pray and worship in her morning prayers (v. 4) as she travels through this present lawless world (vv. 5-13). Thus, the [Orthodox] Church uses Ps 5 as one of her fixed psalms in the First Hour, and the clergy often pray vv. 8, 9, upon entering the church just prior to the services. As for the lack of "exegetical resources" for help with the LXX, the Early Church Fathers are a GREAT and VAST resource! Books can be purchased, but online is easier: ccel.org/fathers For Bible commentaries from the Early Church Fathers, try the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (a vast collection). These can be purchased at www.christianbook.com Other resources: exegeticaltools.com/2017/01/02/take-greek-next-level-septuagint/ biblicalgreek.org/translate/lxx/ studybible.info/version/LXX_WH exegeticaltools.com/2018/11/18/septuaginta-readers-edition-lxx-greg-lanier-will-ross/ michaelincontext.com/the-septuagint/ www.juliantrubin.com/encyclopedia/bible/septuagint.html

The problem with the presentation of the speaker is that his argument is based on the Greek vs Hebrew languages. That's not the main point in decision making. You need to see what the content was delivered in MT and Septuagint. In Septuagint is more sense fitting the Gospel. Secondly, it's not right to say that early Christians did not understand Hebrew. There were a lot of Jews by blood early Christians, for example all apostles and thousands of people who believed and became converted during time when Christ was on earth and then during apostles. The the most valid point is the Jesus Christ quoted from Septuagint. He definitely knew Hebrew language. But He quoted from correct Scripture given by God, which matches with Septuagint way more than with MT.

Masoretic text omit the word light in isaiah 53:11 and many other verses, they want to deny the resurrection of Jesus and discredit the greek new Testament because it leads to the true messiah Jesus

He says the LXX and the King James are divinely inspired. I think that is a bad choice of words. Only the original language is divinely inspired. The translations may be guided by the Holy Spirit to have been done, definitely not inspired because they contain human mistakes. The original contain no mistakes, and therefore, it is the only thing that is divinely inspired.

Attention translator Are you willing to come and speak on other networks about your finds?

absolutely no comparison Masoretic real power from the Holy Ghost the fiction of lies and deceit the other.

If this fact could be brought forward, the Hebrew language wasn't invented until 925 BC. That is several hundred years after the death of Moses and Joshua. Moses wrote the Torah in Aklafian and scribed it in Phonecian, often called Proto Siniatic. Hebrew is the translation.

No translation is "divinely inspired". See minute 19:28.

Translations are not inspired.

I've never bought into the Septuagint.

The letter kills, the Spirit gives life.

The reason why the Greek Septuagint and also New Testament Greek translation and yes new Testement Greek is a translation from Hebrew the original language, and that Greek is a translation called koinia Hreek which is a Hebraic style Greek, so they used Hebrew rules and syntax and defined the Greek words according to the Hebrew word equivalents and that’s why Greek is so difficult for a person who thinks that the new Testement Greek was the primary text, you can never understand the hebraised Greek without understanding Hebrew language, culture, history and it’s poetic Hebrew puns. And for this man to say that the Masoretics text is corrupt and then say the lxx has some small problems is incredibly hypocritical and corrupt in itself. There are so many things he doesn’t bring up that shows that the Lxx is also equally corrupt, and all his arguments against the Hebrew I can turn every argument he uses and turn it on its head, my conclusion of the matter is you have a western Christian who has a western Greek primacy has blinded his and every modern scholar we see today.

It was cool to learn how translators think but I’m definitely here to learn truth, not translator best practices