Replies

The post to which I think you are responding, #766, is reproduced here:

***************************

The codices of the LXX that have the deuterocanonicals were the not the immediate product of the Jewish magisterium, but were apparently the result of 4th-5th Century Christian scholarship. See Roger Beckwith here (also see his book, “The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church: and its Background in Early Judaism”):

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/evangel/04-1_012.pdf

So Timothy’s OT was, best we know, absent the deuterocanonicals, and your claim for their inspiration cannot be substantiated.

Peace,

***************************

So I need some clarification here. Because you didn’t spell it out, I am assuming the “absurd on it’s face” assertion to which you refer is that Timothy’s OT didn’t have the deuterocanonicals, therefore your argument for their inspiration is unsubstantiated. Am I understanding you correctly in this? Or were you referring to some other assertion?

Because if you say you have not impeached Beckwith, how can his conclusion be regarded as facially absurd? If Beckwith’s testimony stands, so does the assertion. Facial absurdity would be something like, “the moon is made of green cheese.” We know too much to accept that as even a remote possibility. But the forgoing assertion about Timothy’s OT is at least as plausible as yours, and much more plausible than yours if you fail to dislogdge Beckwith.

Now I say all of this in the uncertainty that I’ve even understood you. Nevertheless, this is my best understanding of what you were trying to say. Please feel free to add the necessary specifics so I can give a less befuddled response on the next go-around. :)

Peace,

if you say you have not impeached Beckwith, how can his conclusion be regarded as facially absurd?

I have not impeached him by pointing out his confessional bias, -- I was in agreement with you that it is not enough to point out a confession or a political party to impeach an authority. But I also pointed out two facts:

1. The Catholic Encyclopedia says the same thing Beckwith says in the PDF link that you posted: the extant copies of the Septuagint are of Christian provenance. That is not a proof that the books themselves are written by Christians and not even a discovery by Beckwith. In fact, as I pointed out, it is hard to find a motive for such deception: while the books in question contain many occasional statements that prefigure Christ, their volume and historical thrust does not help a Christian apologist.

2. The references to the Deuterocanon are plentiful among pre-Nicaean fathers such as Sts. Justine Martyr, Hippolytus and Irenaeus, and to Origen. This makes Beckwith's hypothesis absurd on its face. Therefore it is incumbent of Beckwith to somehow deal with this fact. Yet the short article you posted bypasses this issue. Now, giving him a benefit of the doubt, it is possible that he addresses it in his book. But the fact that in the article he makes no such attempt makes me not interested to find out. The article looks like agitprop for the uneducated.