The LXX (The evidence) (SteveCR)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

MATT BELL
Your response above makes no comment on the validity or otherwise of the
explanation of the Hebrews 10:5 'problem'? Nor have you (or any others)
commented on the removal of the Rylands Fragment #458; the Letter of
Aristeas and the comments of Aristobulus as evidence of a BC LXX. If you
are not careful I might begin thinking I have a case <g>. 

STEVE CR
At another time I might argue about the theological problems of Hebrews
10:5. My point was, it is very clear that the writer of Hebrews quoted from
the LXX and not the MT because they are so different.

MATT BELL
Clear? Yeah, about as clear as mud. Deal with the explanation and then make
assertions.

STEVE CR
The argument you presented above has no relationship to any evidence about
the priority of the LXX to the NT.

MATT BELL
The argument that I have now snipped was headed and related to what you and
Helen presented as the Hebrews 10:5 'problem'. A response has been
presented removing the problem. Demonstrate how that explanation is flawed?


STEVE CR
As for the 'Rylands fragment, Letter of Aristeas, and comments of
Aristobolus'... Matt, didn't you read the comments to the Mansbacher Email?
It's good that you read the Letter of Aristeas for yourself, but we already
knew that it only dealt with the Pentateuch.

MATT BELL
Of all the people who made comments on the letter if Aristeas how many:

1. Did not cite it as evidence of the LXX - allegedely an Greek translation
of the OT (not just the Pentateuch)?
2. Mention that it related only to the Pentateuch?

STEVE CR
If you can put together an argument that involves all of the evidence so
far presented, I'm sure someone will be glad to answer. I am amazed you can
make your last comment above. You haven't even started.

MATT BELL
The Letter of Aristeas, Rylands Papyus #458 and Aristobulos statement are,
so far, the strongest arguments that have been put forward. The Jesus Ben
Sirach statement was dealt with (with no return comments that I am aware
of), by Paul Mansbacher. That leaves what? The Aquila statement, Josephus
and the alleged use of the NT writers of the LXX which is really not an
evidence as it presupposes without evidence that they quoted the LXX and
not vice versa? Have I missed anything? Do you accept that the Letter of
Aristeas, Rylands Papyrus #458 and Aristobulos statement relate ONLY to a
BC Greek translation of the Pentateuch, and therefore do not establish the
existence of a BC LXX? If not, why not?

Thanks
Matt Bell

• Previous message: The Earth Shall Not Be Moved
• Next message: The LXX (The evidence) (SteveCR)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]