By what logic? The "logic" by which they rejected Jesus aa the Messiah, and thus had to reject the entire N.T. and everything it was based on, i.e. the Septuagint.
Comparison of LXX and MT with NT texts (Link. C'mon, worth a look.)
I am not at all puzzled that a believing Jew in 100 A.D., reeling from the destruction of the Temple, and eager to combat the disruptive evangelizing efforts of the Christians, would want to reject the LXX has his Scriptural basis.
Nor am I puzzled that an A.D. 700 Jew, defensive aainst Christians on the one side and Muslims on the other, would adopt a new Hebrew edition (the Masoretic) as his favored translation. It bolsters his conviction that the Christians have long been very much mistaken.
What I remain sincerely perplexed about, is why a Christian would prefer an A.D. 100 canon, and an A.D. 700 translation, instead of the far older B.C. Scriptural resouces attested to by the earliest Christians.
Why in the world?
The Septuagint predates the first appearance of the Masoretic text by almost ten centuries. The Septuagint itself is based upon Hebrew texts at least twelve centuries older than the texts upon which the Masoretic version is based.
Most of the quotations from the Old Testament in the New Testament used either the Septuagint, or the even older Hebrew texts upon which it was based, as their primary source. Discredit the Septuagint and there is no New Testament.
Which --- from an A.D. Jewish point of view --- is quite agreeable, isn't it?
I'm out the rest of the day Shape-Note Singin' --- so I bid you farewell for now. But let's pray for each other. God bless you.
is a good one, and reminds me both, as to where I have misspoken, but points irrefutably also to the essence of the argument I had in mind at that time.
My own mis-speak concerning this, was allowing a previous claim I had seen here on FR threads, which proposed essentially that "New Testament persons could be seen as quoting books of the Apocrypha, and did so many dozens of times", to cloud my mind.
It was that claim which I had in mind, and spoke to, when I said "I doubt seriously 80%". Which as it turns out, was not the claim you made at all. My apologies.
I saw the "80%" and thought it a repeat of the previously proposed argument. My mistake.
When we go back to the link provided here first by yourself, looking at the charts there, is it not found that ALL, and I mean EVERY SINGLE 'Old Testament' quote/reference is from the "books" now found to be limited to those included in the Hebrew Scripture, and NONE of them, zip-zada-zero are sourced from the Apocrypha?
Which is why my own somewhat misguided;
You say;
No one here has willfully attempted to "discredit" any particular version of Septuagint in toto, but I myself have been pointing to fact that the inclusion of those "extra" works here in dispute, you know, the Apocrypha(?), should not be confused with the primary, the actual Word, which the Hebrew scholars maintain was established at the Great Assembly, as Zionist Conspirator has reminded us.
The discussion here currently is not about the translations themselves per se, but about which "books" are to be considered to be a part of the divine Revelation, which Christ Himself was the embodiment of, when He stood before the Sanhedrin.
This last part, is extremely important. Include here spurious works not part of the Word given to the Hebrews, long known to them as being the Word, and what do we end up with but an impure Christ?
Thankfully, with much relief, we are spared such.
Thank you, men of the Great Assembly for doing that which was set before you to do. Thank you Sanhedrin, for your slaying of the Sacrifice, done not in the Temple, the Second Temple which had never contained the true, original Ark of the Covenant*, but nonetheless was done in fulfillment of all Divine Law, grievous as it was, in it's fruition.
That is the Christ I know. I know no other.