"Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour, quotes the testimony of the Old Testament, he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two forms exist "Out of Egypt have I called my son, " and "for he shall be called a Nazarene" (Jerome. De Viris Illustribus (On Illustrious Men). Excerpted from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume 3. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. American Edition, 1892. Online Edition Copyright © 2005 by K. Knight).
The Septuagint has been under revision for two thousand years. Everyone and their brother has been engaged in the revision of the Septuagint. So who is to say that at some point in time, some of the passages of the NT were not placed back into the Septuagint from the NT --- by the likes of Origen for his Hexapla.
I point out that in Origen's day there appeared to be no authoritative Septuagint. He had to use Aquila, Symmachus, and mainly Theodotian to write his fifth column LXX. Why??? What had happened to that beloved Septuagint??? Is it possible that some Christians had been using Aquila and Theodotian, with minor adjustments of course, and then calling them "the Septuagint"???
Origen recognized that there was one Hebrew text and that was in his first column, but he needed four other columns for assistance in writing his LXX in the fifth column. So even Origen recognized that the Hebrew text of his day was unchanging and singular, as did Jerome, but "the Septuagint" was always under perpetual revision and still is today.
>> The Septuagint has been under revision for two thousand years. Everyone and their brother has been engaged in the revision of the Septuagint. So who is to say that at some point in time, some of the passages of the NT were not placed back into the Septuagint from the NT --- by the likes of Origen for his Hexapla. <<
Sure, some copies could be redacted as such, but the notion that all copies would be is preposterous. Don't forget: communication in those days was so abyssmal that Jerome didn't even know of multiple Jewish texts! And besides: why would they preserve inconsistencies? Why wouldn't they make it conform 100% to the New Testament? Why would there exist passages which are more similar to the Septuagint, but not exactly? Plus, you seem to forget that Origen's purpose was to compare translations.
>> Here is what Jerome says about Matthew: <<
Yes, Matthew is unique in that it was written in Hebrew, and THEN translated into Greek. The rest of the New Testament was almost certainly composed directly in Greek. But that is ONLY Matthew who did that. It is VERY likely that Jesus, himself, did cite the Hebrew text to those who spoke only Hebrew; How bizarre would it be to speak Greek to them!
The point is that when the apostles wrote to a Greek audience, they did not translate the scripture from Hebrew to Greek, as they did their own thoughts, but rather used Greek documents already available. This would certainly seem to suggest that the Greek documents were deemed acceptable by the apostles.
Luther asserted that the Hebrew canon (which did not even exist as a canon at the time of Christ) was authoritative over the Greek canon. How bizarre!
Given what we now know, can you imagine this?: The Greek Jews had been reading the Septuagint as scripture all along. Many Greek gentiles even knew of it and read it to learn about Judaism. Now, these Jews come from Israel, establishing a new faith, based on the Jewish faith, and claiming it is the fulfillment of the Jewish faith. And no-one ever informed them (for 1600 years) that there Septuagint had seven extra books -- with dangerous theology -- in them?
We have NO historical record of ANYONE in the early church denying the status of the Septuagint's canon. Even Origen's alleged denial is an argument from silence: he failed to include the Septuagint books in his Hexalpa. But his reason is obvious, and it wasn't that he didn't consider them scripture: He was comparing translations, and he had no Hebrew version of the Septuagint available!
Several people have cited cases of Church Fathers blasting the authenticity of the apocrypha, as if ignorant of the fact that the term apocrypha (prior to Luther) meant "hidden writings," and could hardly be applied to books which were in the published bibles. Many of these Church Fathers elsewhere stated exactly what they meant by "apocrypha."