The LXX (The evidence) (SteveCR/F.Till)
Steve Carson-Rowland kirra@powerup.com.au
Mon, 27 Apr 1998 23:15:32 +1000 (00893700932, 199804271315.HAA08311@maxwell.kumo.com)
STEVE CR (27/4)
> <snip>
Also, you didn't mention Philo Judaeus in your comment. From what I can
gather, he and Josephus are irrelevant. Origen went through all the writers
that pre-dated him who had ever quoted from the OT and amended his
translation (soon to be called the LXX) to match up with every quote from
Philo. And although these differ from the wonderfully preserved MT that we
have, they in fact are the same text (somehow).
Perhaps you can indicate if this is the substance of your argument. It
appears to be. Lacking the caustic wit of Farrell Till I'll just say
that if anyone else on the list thinks that Matt's argument is in any way
presuasive for the LXX coming after the NT please say so now and I'll
summon up the effort to write another Email.
MATT BELL
No it is not the substance of my argument. I have nowhere asserted that
Origen did what you claim above. With regard to Philo, I do not have his
works, nor can find anything on the net to work through and check. With
Josephus I have 'The Essential Writings' which I will be beginning to work
through today. If you can summon up the effort and save the thread
continuing until that is accomplished then simply post the relevant quotes
from both Philo and Josephus.
STEVE CR (later on the 27/4)
So what is the substance of your argument? Where the NT cites or uses the
LXX and the LXX differs from the MT, your argument, sorry the argument you
are tenaciously putting forward for debate, it is apparently the LXX that
copied from the NT. And the fact that the NT doesn't appear to be taken
from the MT is just an *apparent* problem.
So why would quotes from Philo make any difference? The LXX also copied
from Philo. Philo was using the MT although his citations differ from the
MT. Same argument, different writer.
Steve Carson-Rowland
Queensland - Land of Eternal Summer