[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

Steven, thanks for the in-depth response. I am surprised, based on your quote of Josephus, that the issue of the early dating of the LXX is not more settled.

Welcome. I actually picked up this information on a skeptic board, where it was being used for confused reasons. Yet the obvious implications, which we see clearly and 'scholarship' has missed, are totally compelling.

It is as close to a one-quote (ok..two) settlement of a dispute as you are likely to see. How anyone can claim that there was a circulating full Greek OT at the time of Jesus and the apostolic writings of the NT, in the wake of the Josephus reference to the lack of the history books in Greek, is a real puzzle.

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

My only assumption is that what we call today the LXX was not the (partial) Greek translation that may have existed during that period if at all....Would it not be true that the title "Septuagint' or "LXX" that has been given to the Greek OT mss is where the problem is created? In reality, those names are specific to a particular 4th century copy, are they not?

Yes. This is one of those malleable terms, and that is one of the problems in ever using it without ultra-caution (I generally use 'Greek OT'). 'LXX' or 'Septuagint' is meant to give an impression of antiquity (what occurred c 250 BC) to MSS that are 4th century and later, even knowing the ultra-squirrelly transmissional history of the first centuries AD. Even some in scholarship realms recoil at the loose usage of the term.

Shalom,
Steven