To: Uncle Chip; jo kus
I found this interesting from Sir Lancelot Brenton's 19th century essay on the History of the Septuagint UC, this has already been presented on this thread. Brenton bases his otherwise educated essay on the knowledge of the middle of the 19th century. Since then, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (1947) demonstrated that there was more than one "Jewish canon" and that the Septuagint is actually a lot more genuine that it used to be believed in the 1850's, when brenton wrote that piece.
10,914 posted on
02/20/2007 12:24:27 PM PST by
kosta50
(Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
To: kosta50; fortheDeclaration
Since then, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (1947) demonstrated that there was more than one "Jewish canon" and that the Septuagint is actually a lot more genuine that it used to be believed in the 1850's, when brenton wrote that piece.No, the DSS have reinforced the Masoretic text underlying the KJV. Nothing discovered in the DSS has proven as convincing as the Book of Isaiah written in Hebrew circa 100 BC, buried 70 AD, rediscovered 50 AD, and yet a near perfect match for the Masoretic text from circa 1000 AD.
10,915 posted on
02/20/2007 2:11:02 PM PST by
Uncle Chip
(TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
To: kosta50
found this interesting from Sir Lancelot Brenton's 19th century essay on the History of the Septuagint UC, this has already been presented on this thread. Brenton bases his otherwise educated essay on the knowledge of the middle of the 19th century. Since then, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (1947) demonstrated that there was more than one "Jewish canon" and that the Septuagint is actually a lot more genuine that it used to be believed in the 1850's, when brenton wrote that piece. There is nothing that has been discovered that has given the Septuagint any creditability over the Hebrew MS text.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson