Quote:
Originally Posted by Connie
I can't see why on earth anyone would doubt that such a translation existed.
|
Whether or not it existed is less important than whether or not any of the LXX was actually used by Christ or the authors of the NT. Modernists interested in pressing the case that corrupt translations are "a-okay" try to convince people that the NT itslef contains quotations from the LXX. It does not -- where the LXX agrees with the NT it is simply because the LXX got it right.
Quote:
|
It was clearly needed by the Jews
|
Says who? It was needed by academics of the day. The Jews would not have trusted their texts to the scholars that produced the LXX.
I suggest you read Chapter 6 of
Crowned With Glory which addresses the LXX question. Here are some quotes:
For years it had been thought that the Bible Christ used was the Greek Septuagint (also known as the LXX). The common thought was that the Jews at the time of Christ had all but lost their use of Hebrew since the international language of that day was Greek. However, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (which will be discussed in greater detail in the following chapter), it has been established that the Jews did not lose their use of Hebrew. In fact, most of their writings (both sacred and otherwise) were written in Hebrew.
Alan Millard, Professor of Hebrew and Ancient Semitic Languages at the University of Liverpool, England, observed that for years scholars believed that Hebrew was limited to religious usage during the time of Christ. But from the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and books written in common Hebrew among them, it can now be established that a form of Hebrew, like the Hebrew used in the Old Testament yet distinct in form, was in use during the time of Christ and the apostles.