[chette777]

I had been searching for some time about this Greek old testament supposidlly compiled by a Poltimy II Pharoah in Alexandrea some 240BC.

Of all the translated documents and collums the four main schools of Egyptology of Harvard, Yale, Cambridge and Oxford Univeristies, say that as far as their knowledge of the event only the first five books of the Law were translated into Greek. their records indicate that Poltimy II was only interested in the Hebrew law not all of Hebrew history.

The 70 only copied the first five books of Moses in 70 days according to these sources. Not the whole Old Testament as many scholars claim. Only one modern encyclopidia states that and it is Encarta by microsoft.

According to their concensus the rest of the O.T. was added around 300AD. seems very clear and makes a lot of sense that only five OT books were translated in 70 days and not the whole OT as we are told today in many BIble Colleges.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by chette777

the four main schools of Egyptology of Harvard, Yale, Cambridge and Oxford Univeristies, say that as far as their knowledge of the event only the first five books of the Law were translated into Greek. their records indicate that Poltimy II was only interested in the Hebrew law not all of Hebrew history.

This fits well with other evidences, such as the fact that almost all extant early Greek fragments are of the Pentateuch, and also Josephus indicating the lack of the histories being in Greek, one impetus for his writing Antiquities (Josephus considered doing a translation first). If you have any documents from the Universities, feel free to share or point.

Originally Posted by chette777

The 70 only copied the first five books of Moses in 70 days according to these sources. Not the whole Old Testament as many scholars claim.

The aspect of 70 days becomes more sensible in this case, although other aspects of the Letter to Aristeas remain fanciful.

Originally Posted by chette777

Only one modern encyclopidia states that and it is Encarta by microsoft.

Yes, they are more reasonable than most, in a rather small article.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_...eptuagint.html
Septuagint
Septuagint, name given the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. The term is derived from the Latin word septuaginta (“seventy”; hence, the customary abbreviation LXX), which refers to the 70 (or 72) translators who were once believed to have been appointed by the Jewish high priest of the time to render the Hebrew Bible into Greek at the behest of the Hellenistic emperor Ptolemy II.

The legend of the 70 translators contains an element of truth, for the Torah (the five books of Moses—Genesis to Deuteronomy) probably had been translated into Greek by the 3rd century bc to serve the needs of Greek-speaking Jews outside Palestine who were no longer able to read their Scriptures in the original Hebrew. The translation of the remaining books of the Hebrew Old Testament, the addition to it of books and parts of books (the Apocrypha), and the final production of the Greek Old Testament as the Bible of the early Christian church form a very complicated history. Because the Septuagint, rather than the Hebrew text, became the Bible of the early church, other Jewish translations of the Hebrew Bible into Greek were made by the 3rd century; these are extant only in fragments, and their history is even more obscure than that of the Septuagint.

Originally Posted by chette777

According to their concensus the rest of the O.T. was added around 300AD.

There were various editions made and collated (the Hexapla) from about 100 AD to 225 AD, so 300 AD is a late date. From our standpoint, the important issue is that this is after the NT was written, and you can see NT influences in the Greek text, various textual 'smoothings' , tampering with the text to be more like the NT. Psalm 14 from Romans 3 being the smoking cannon.

Originally Posted by chette777

seems very clear and makes a lot of sense that only five OT books were translated in 70 days and not the whole OT as we are told today in many BIble Colleges.

Yep.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Sam Gipp's The Answer Book, which is available online, has an interesting, brief discussion of the Septuagint - - - and the rest of the book is terrific, too.

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_09.asp

[atlas]

This is what the LXX really is. Most of this is from Ruckman. All of it may be from Ruckman. I'm not 100% sue where I got it all, but I do know most came from Ruckman.

1. Pieces of Genesis dated A.D. 200 – 400 ( Berlin genesis ) (1) Amherse (2) British Museum (3) and Oxyrhyncus.

2. A Bodleian papyrus leaf (5) with part of the book of Song of Solomon written A.D. 600 – 750

3. An Amherst papyrus (6) with part of Job chapters 1 and 2 written A.D. 600 – 700

4. An Amherst papyrus (7) parts of Psalm 5 written A.D. 400-550

5. Fragment Londinensia (8) in British Museum with parts of Psalm 10, 18, 20 and 34 written A.D. 600-750

6. British Museum 230 (9) with part of Psalm 12:7-15:4 written A.D. 220-400

7. A Berlin papyrus (10) with partPsalm 40:26-41:4 written A.D. 250-400

8. Oxyrhyncus papyrus “ 845 “ (11) with Psalm 68 and 70 written A.D.300-500

9. Amherst papyrus (12) has part of Psalm 108, 118, 135, 139, and 140A.D. 600-700

10. Leipzig papyrus (13) witch has the 1st part of Psalms written about 800 A.D. ( this is the largest of all of the 24 fragments and pieces )

11. Heidelberg Codex (14) with Zach. 4:6 Mal 4:5 written A.D 600-700

12. Oxyrhyncus “ 846 “ (15) part of Amos chapter 2 A.D 500-600

13. A Rainer papyrus (16) with part of Isa. 38 A.D 200-300

14. A Bodleian papyrus (17) with part of Eze. 5 and 6 written 500-600 A.D

15. The Rylands papyri A: Deu. chapters 2 and 3 (18) 1300- 1400 A.D. B: Job 1, 5 and 6 (19) written 550-700

16. The Oxyrhyncus Volumes have parts of, A: EX. 21, 22, and a very small part of 40. It is about 2 verses of chapter 40 (20, 21 & 22) A.D. 200-300 B: Gen. 16 (23) A.D. 200-300 C: Gen. Chapter 31 (24) written A.D. 300-400

[PeterAV]

With 200AD being the earliest date, means to me...LXX[72] pre-Christ is 100% myth.
Yes, I do know that many, if not almost all, is lost. Paper only lasts so long.
But when one gets a proven fake story only, rife with errors and people try their hardest to legitimize it even in the KJB camp, really puzzles me.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by atlas

This is what the LXX really is....

With 16 items there are some major omissions. To the 'scholars' the 'LXX' is largely Codex Vaticanus (a triple-trouble MS, NT, OT, and Apocrypha from about 350 AD, far more significant that the various papyri listed above). Secondarily it is Codex Sinaiticus, also triple-trouble. However the Greek OT used by the Byzantine Church (e.g. Greek Orthodox) is not Vaticanus and Sinaiticus based, it is still corrupt but has its own slightly-superior and quite different text, which at least is homogeneous among their MSS. Codex Alexandrinus (5th century) would be more complete than the other two (which have major gaps) and also likely be closer to the Byzantine text than Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. The scholarly 'LXX' is overall quite different than the church 'LXX', since the scholarly reconstructionst uses Vaticanus as the core MS. (Sound familiar ?).

It is true that they augment this (largely because of Vaticanus-Sinaticus gaps) with the kitchen sink, which can be MS scraps as above, or Old Latin, or attempts conjectured from Philo, or this and that.

Looking at the list above, the only really significant scraps/papyri discussions are those from before the 4th century, which are listed on a Robert Kraft website. And they are significant not so much for their influence on the text but for the discussions of trying to:

date the 'LXX' in its various sections

theorize about the distinctions between the various text-line variants (which may be due to the various translations done around the 2nd century and represented in the Hexapla of Origen, which is mostly gone, leading to conjecture city)

discuss what was available in the 1st century, at the time of the Lord Jesus and the apostles.

Personally I believe the Peter Ruckman and Sam Gipp approach to the Greek OT leaves some to be desired. While they are right on the basic incompetence of the work they write in a manner that does not necessarily inform their readers well and leads to a difficulty in discussion with those who are not aware of 'LXX' difficulties. They may declare a 'myth' .. then some early fragments are seen from the 1st century BC or 1st century AD and there is a bit of a discussion disconnect.

Some examples of difficulties in simply using Ruckman/Gipp as the main source.

Rarely is the incredible smoking cannon of Psalm 14 from Romans 3 emphasized, which is fundamental to the argument that the Greek OT was tampered, or 'smoothed', to the NT, generally explaining the NT-Greek-OT confluences.

The situation with the Pentateuch is not made sufficiently distinct from the rest of the OT, and in this regard the Josephus evidence of no OT histories (Chronicles, Kings, etc) available in Greek is unmentioned (that was missed by many). Thus their reader may end up arguing even against an early Pentateuch translation, which is very awkward from a scholarly evidence standpoint.

And then we get lists like the above, omitting Vaticanus which is the centerpiece 'LXX' MS to the modern textcrit scholar.

And the triple-trouble aspect of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are not brought forth.

Returning to the link above from Samuel Gipp, today there are about a dozen Greek fragments from before the time of Jesus, not one as seems to be the Gipp indication. Also his discussion about Origen is lacking and does not even indicate the basics, that their were multiple Greek columns. Gipp's section in the link above will simply not be a solid base for any Hexapla discussions.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

A question, Brother Steven: who cares? What difference does it make? If someone is simply asking what the LXX is, because they simply don't know, the Gipp approach is best, because it's most accessible. But what conceivable value does the existence or non-existence of the LXX offer to a Bible believing Christian who's simply trying to understand God's word?

I understand, of course, that the "scholars" love to drone on and on about it; but that's their profession. That's how they put food on the table, and pay the mortgage.

But, unless one is a professional Greek scholar, why should he or she care one way or the other?

I can talk, and sometimes have talked, about Vaticanus and Sinaiaticus and P38 and all the rest, far into the night. But, so far, in 39 years of the Christian life, the only value such chattering has had is in the area of explaining the provenance of the KJB to unbelievers and Christians who don't use it.

It strikes me as vanity and vexation of spirit. For me, at least. Of course, I am a simple and uneducated soul, and not privy to the enthusiasms of the scholarly class.

[MC1171611]

Scholarly class? We need to take your money too! Middle Class Rules!!

Originally Posted by MC1171611

Scholarly class? We need to take your money too! Middle Class Rules!!

Don't get me started, brother! If that Jew-hating, income-redistributing, race-baiting, anarchist-loving, press-stifling, election-stealing, resume-padding, utterly worthless scoundrel prevails next Tuesday ....

Well, I guess I'll pray for him. But the Lord will have to give me grace!

[MC1171611]

Originally Posted by Vendetta Ride

Don't get me started, brother! If that Jew-hating, income-redistributing, race-baiting, anarchist-loving, press-stifling, election-stealing, resume-padding, utterly worthless scoundrel prevails next Tuesday ....

Well, I guess I'll pray for him. But the Lord will have to give me grace!

Brother, help the South secede again! I've already got half a mind to go to the League of the South meeting in North Carolina in December! I know I don't want that ungodly wretch as my president.

*shudders*