Facts about the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament

This is a video explaining some simple facts about the LXX
That the LXX in use today comes from the A.D. period not the B.C. period and is the edited work of Origen, found in his Hexapla.
Works consulted are,
Forever Settled, A survey of the documents and history of the Bible, by Jack Moorman
The Septuagint, a Critcal Analysis, Floyd Jones,
The Text of the Old Testament, an introduction to the Biblia Hebraica, by Ernest Wurthwein
An Introduction of the Old Testament in Greek, by Henry Swete,
The Mythological Septuagint by Dr. Peter Ruckman
That it is very unevenly translated, and is considered a poor translation of the Hebrew in many of the books.
It contained the Apocrypha books as part of the canon
That it is not to be used to correct the Masoretic text that was used by the King James translators.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• The Septuagint
• the Masoretic Hebrew text
• the King James Bible

[edwardpf123]

@vedinthorn These Old Latin translations going back in their earliest forms to nearly the middle of the 2nd century are very early witnesses to the Greek text from which they were made. They are the more valuable inasmuch as they are manifestly very literal translations. Our great uncial manuscripts reach no farther back than the 4th century, whereas in the Old Latin we have evidence--indirect indeed and requiring to be cautiously used--reaching back to the 2nd century (ISBE)

[edwardpf123]

@vedinthorn

The close textual relation disclosed between the Latin and the Syriac versions has led some authorities to believe that, after all, the earliest Latin version may have been made in the East, and possibly at Antioch. (ISBE)

[vedinthorn]

@edwardpf123 According to what person whose full time job it is to know and teach such things?

Also, the OL by and large doesn't support Byzantine readings either. Sometimes it does, but they are sparse, and if anything, that fact is a witness against them.

[edwardpf123]

@vedinthorn -What assertions! The only historical evidence of any LXX is from the late 1st century AD written by three apostate Jews. It is you who are making suppositions and assertions without a shred of any real evidence.

No one knows who wrote the false letter of Aristeas, saying it was Philo is pure speculation.

[vedinthorn]

@edwardpf123 Got any proof of those assertions?

[edwardpf123]

@vedinthorn -What is KNOWN is no earlier then the late 1st century AD. What Philo did or didn't do is still speculation. Even if he wrote the letter of Aristeas, it doesn't mean there was an actual BC LXX. He never actually quotes any Gr. OT. The LXX that we know existed, existed late in the 1st century AD, and was not composed by orthodox Jews, but by apostate ones-Ebionites. So it would NOT have been used by the Apostles.

There were likely Gr. Targums in use, not a LXX.

[vedinthorn]

@edwardpf123 If you even want to say Philo wrote about it as the author of The Letter of Aristeas, I am baffled by how you can say 'late first century AD' since Philo was dead by AD 50. Ebionites likely didn't exist until 70 AD or very shortly before, so that rules them out as well. I promise no one had a time machine back then, so that means the LXX was at LEAST started VERY early in the first century AD, translated by Jews (who else would bother?) and was apparently used by the apostles.

[edwardpf123]

@vedinthorn -Actually it was known no EARLIER then the late 1st century AD. It was composed by apostate heretical Ebionites and edited by one of the worst heretics in Christian history, Origen, who added the Apocrypha books into it as canonical. The most logical conclusion to draw is that neither the Lord nor the Apostles, would have touched it.

[vedinthorn]

Let's take stock in what we have so far. Beyond dispute the LXX was a book (or collection of books) known by name no later than the first century AD. It may have been incomplete, but was a Greek translation of many of the OT books known at the time. It is also highly unlikely that the earliest attestation of it is not from at least 150 BC or before. What is, therefore, the most logical conclusion to draw?

[edwardpf123]

@vedinthorn -Never said there wasn't a LXX versions in the 1st century AD(Aquila-an Ebionite-128AD Symmachus( Ebionite) wrote one in 180-180-192AD.

Theodotion wrote one, whiich is suppose to have come from the original LXX 161-181AD (yet another Ebionite)

All of them were done after the NT Canon was closed in 90AD.

Philo (an unsaved neo-Plationist) might have made up the story to defend the myth of a version he never saw.