The LXX (The evidence) (SteveCR/F.Till)

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

STEVE CR

> 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.


MATT BELL
The claim for the LXX is that it is a translation of the Hebrew OT. Philo
does not come into the picture in that claim. If he (or Josephus), quote
the LXX outside of the Pentateuch this it is independant witness to its
existence.

Thanks
Matt Bell

• Previous message: The LXX (The evidence) (SteveCR/F.Till)
• Next message: The LXX (The evidence) (SteveCR/F.Till)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]