*sigh* When you manage to get the criteria of my argument correctly, maybe we'll get somewhere: I am not arguing for the MT, which is just one tradition out of at least three, but for the Hebrew text. Ergo, both quotes consistent with the MT and quotes that are evidentially self-translations from the Hebrew but do not agree with the LXX are admissible.
Moreover, I am not arguing that the NT authors did not use the LXX as their default translation any more than I would claim that Chuck Missler does not use the KJV as his default translation. What I am arguing is that they did not consider the LXX to be Divinely correct, since out of the instances in which there is real disagreement between the LXX and the Hebrew (that is, the actual sense of the words in all existent Hebrew texts, including the DSS, are different from the sense of the words in the LXX), they side against the LXX between almost half to a third of the time, to judge by how often even this LXX proponent seems to err in imagining a difference where there is none.
Even limiting myself to MT quotes, I can cite Matthew (2:15, 11:10) and John (19:37) in addition to Sha'ul's letters. Under my actual criteria rather than your strawman parody of it, Mark likewise did not always agree with the LXX (12:29-30), but did his own rendering of the text.
So right off the bat, your premise that only Sha'ul the Pharisee ever disagreed with the LXX is shown to be completely fallacious.
You do not go to anything that looks for historical continuity with the Aposotles if your basic theology is Baptist, as I suspect it to be.
Actually, my basic theology is Messianic Judaism--and my historical continuity with the Apostles, who were all Torah-observant Jews as the book of Acts attests, is a heck of a lot closer than yours.
In other words, the Church as a whole deprecated the Jewish tradition even though it did not wish to purge it.
They didn't deprecate Jewish tradition as a whole--you'll notice how Ya'akov (James) was concerned at the false rumor that Sha'ul was teaching Jews not to follow the customs of their people (Acts 21:21). What they did is cast aside certain traditions which contradicted the Torah (like refusing fellowship with believing Gentiles) and refused to enforce as binding others that added to the Torah (in accordance with Deu. 12:32).
In generall, Christ and the Apostles did not mind the Christian Tradition at all, and when used in the general sense, as in 2 Thess 2:14, it is praised.
Tradition is a fine thing, a connection to our ancestors . . . as long as it neither adds to nor takes away from God's commandments. This is why I reject both the RCC and the EOC as being the "true" Church: Your traditions contradict God's commands in the Torah, which were never annulled in the NT.
As for 2 Thess 2:14, I see nowhere where Sha'ul defines what traditions he had in mind. Most likely he was referring to those traditions which came to be enshrined in the Gospel accounts, since they weren't written at that time. He may have been referring to something else. But I'm pretty sure that moving the Sabbath or iconography wasn't what he had in mind, since that would by definition make him a false prophet (Deu. 12:32-13:5).
They were using the Septuagint alongside with the Hebrew scripture, did they not?
Alongside, yes, as a translation for those who did not speak Hebrew, the same way we use an English translation--but not in place of the Hebrew, which their rabbis (religious leaders) were expected to know so that they could teach correctly from the Tanakh.
They read the Deuterocanon. So should we.
They did not speak of the Apocrypha with the terms that indicated that they thought it Scripture, nor did they build doctrine upon them. Neither should we.
... and with the LXX two thirds to half of the time. What it shows is that the Inspired Writers did not consider and particualr text literally inerrant, and largely preferred LXX. The cumilative statistics you insist on do not address the distinction between St. Paul and other writers as you lump all of them up to inflate the Hebrew preference that we all agree was to be expected from St. Paul. You show that Matthew, John and Mark had instances of non-LXX rendering but you do not show its statistical significance. I do not claim that LXX was used exclusively by any writer. I basically think that different people used different versions and much of the quoting was form memory or in paraphrase. Still LXX preponderates.
my basic theology is Messianic Judaism
But you argue for Protestant, historically insignificant theology while giving it a Hebrew flavor. Form where I am standing, Messianic Judaism is traditional Catholic or Orthodox Christianity; what you have is a blend of Ashkenazi 15-19c culture and Baptist theology.
As for 2 Thess 2:14, I see nowhere where Sha'ul defines what traditions he had in mind.
Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.He is clearly referring to the entirety of the doctrine the Thessalonians had received in different forms from the Apostles. You cannot exclude any tradition that never made it to the Gospel, such as for example, the day of the Sabbath. Your position that "God's commands in the Torah, ... were never annulled in the NT" is inaccurate: at the very least the dietetic restrictions and circumcision were annulled as binding, and the New Testament tells us so.
They did not speak of the Apocrypha with the terms that indicated that they thought it Scripture
St. Paul writes to Timothy that "all scripture" that Timothy learned since childhood is inspired and good and profitable. If St. Paul wanted to draw a distinction between certain books of the Septuagint and other books, this was a good place to mention it.
Buggman responded: They did not speak of the Apocrypha with the terms that indicated that they thought it Scripture, nor did they build doctrine upon them. Neither should we.
I have not been following this conversation, but I happen to come upon Buggman's response and I must disagree with him. The Church Fathers over and over spoke of the DEUTEROCANNONICALS (Apocrypha is the term given to "hidden" writings, not writings that came into the cannon after some discussion, such as 2 Peter or Wisdom) as being Scriptures. They often discussed a theological point, proofing it with a Protocannonical work and IN THE SAME SENTENCE using a Dueterocannonical work. Thus, in context, they considered that the Deut writing had the exact SAME force as the Proto work of Scriptures.
For example, consider this...
"What, then, again says the prophet? 'The assembly of the wicked surrounded me; they encompassed me as bees do a honeycomb,'[Ps. 22:17,118:12] and 'upon my garment they cast lots'[Ps. 22:19]. Since, therefore, He was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, His suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against Israel, 'Woe to their soul, because they have counselted an evil counsel against themselves[Isa. 3:9,] saying, Let us bind the just one, because he is displeasing to us'[Wisdom 2:12]. And Moses also says to them, 'Behold these things, saith the Lord God: Enter into the good land which the Lord sware tto give to Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and inherit ye it, a land flowing with milk and honey'[Ex. 33:1, Lev. 20:24]." Epistle of Barnabas, 6 (A.D. 74).
As any unbiased individual can see, the writer of the Epistle of Barnabas considered the Book of Wisdom to be Scriptural, using a verse from it with the same force in the same sentence as a verse from Isaiah and surrounded by other Scriptures from the Protocanonical books. From such writings, we can determine that many other Fathers considered other books as Scriptures.
Nearly a year ago, some other gentleman on this forum challenged me to prove this idea that the Deuterocanonicals were Scriptures as determined by the Church Fathers. As such, I did some extensive research and found the following. This is a transcript with what I have posted here before...
OT Deuterocanonicals explicitly accepted as Scripture
Epistle of Barnabas Wisdom
Clement of Rome Wisdom
Didache Sirach
Polycarp Tobit
Melito of Sardes gives a list including Daniel and Wisdom, possibly Baruch
Irenaeus Daniel (*see below) and Baruch
Tertullian Wisdom, Daniel, and Baruch
Muratorian Fragment gives a list including Wisdom in the NT
Clement of Alexandria Sirach, Baruch, Tobit and Wisdom
Hippolytus Maccabees, Tobit, Wisdom, Baruch and Daniel
Origen Maccabees, Wisdom, Baruch, Daniel, Tobit and Sirach
Cyprian Maccabees, Wisdom, Daniel, Tobit and Sirach
Dionysius the Great Wisdom, Sirach
Lactanius Sirach
Alexander of Alexandria Sirach
Aphraates the Persian Sage Maccabees and Sirach
Cyril of Jerusalem includes a “canon” list with 2nd Esdras Daniel and Baruch. He later calls Wisdom Scripture, indicating that canon does not equal Scripture, as we define it. Canon means those books to be proclaimed at Mass.
Athanasius Baruch, Daniel, Sirach and Tobit he calls Scripture explicitly. He also lists Wisdom, Judith, Tobit as among those to be read for new converts. Note Tobit is on both lists, so he, like Cyril, does not equate canon with Scripture as we do today. The second list are not to be proclaimed during the Liturgy.
Basil Maccabees, Judith, Wisdom, Baruch, Daniel and Sirach
Hilary of Poitiers Daniel, Baruch, Maccabees, and Wisdom. He also lists Tobit and Judith in his list of Scripture.
Gregory of Nazianzen Daniel, Maccabees, Wisdom, Judith
Gregory of Nyssa Wisdom, Daniel
Ambrose Wisdom, Judith, Daniel, Baruch, Maccabees, Tobit and Sirach
Council of Rome, Decree of Pope Damasus (A.D. 382). All Deuterocanonicals of Roman Catholic Church included.
John Chrysostom Tobit, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, Maccabees, and Daniel
Jerome lists 1st Maccabees and later Sirach (called “Parables” in Hebrew form) as Scripture and discounts the other Deuterocanonicals SOLELY on the grounds that there are no Hebrew versions of them (this is why he includes 1st Maccabees and later Sirach). He also equates Baruch with Scripture right along with Ezekiel.
Council of Hippo, Canon 36 (A.D. 393).
Council of Carthage III, Canon 397 (A.D. 397).
* (all references to Daniel refer to the longer Septuagint, not Hebrew version.)
(This list is not found on the internet, but a result of my own reading and research - I give permission for others to copy and use this as they see fit.)
I stop at 400 AD. The above shows that there was a developing idea of these books and whether they were inspired works of God. As time continues, we see more of the Deuterocanonicals were declared as inspired Scripture, right alongside other Protocanonicals. A Father’s failure to mention a book as Scripture is not evidence of his exclusion. Also, there is NO evidence to suggest, besides Jerome, that ANY Father thought that the Deuterocanonicals were NOT inspired or Scripture. I have not found one instance of this negative being mentioned explicitly. With the evidence, it becomes clear that we can safely conclude that the Catholic Church correctly decided to incorporate the Deuterocanonicals into the Bible and declare all books thus as Scripture and inspired by God. We have no reason to believe that they were poorly informed or purposely mislead the future Church on the subject of what was Scripture. It becomes apparent that continuing to hold to this idea shows a philosophy without justification.
In the end, Buggman, those who refuse to accept the Old Testament Deuts are going to have to explain why they accept the NEW Testament Deuts, such as James, 2 and 3 John, and 2 Peter in their Scriptures, as THEY TOO were debated initially. Why the NT but not the OT Deuts??? Can anyone deny that there are theological reasons for why Luther cast them out of the Bible?
Regards