According to whom? They had the authority to translate Hebrew scrolls. The "Authority" was the Temple at Jerusalem.
2. They did, several centuries before Jesus was born.
There is no doubt that there were Hebrew scholars at Alexandria (and in Babylon). But it is a huge stretch to consider Alexandria to be equal in authority to the Temple of Jerusalem.
3. Most Jews did not speak Hebrew - it was a scholastic language mostly relegated to the Pharisees.
Not true, at least until after the Roman period. The Torah scrolls (found anywhere) are all in Hebrew and these were read to the assemblies - implying understanding of Hebrew by those attending. The coins in Israel were minted in Hebrew, and the grave markers are Hebrew.
Perhaps it is fair to say that outlying communities (Rome, Alexandria, Greece, etc) were losing their native language, but I highly doubt that "Most Jews did not speak Hebrew" is an effective statement until after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the ending of the necessity of the religious pilgrimages thereto.
5. The Scrolls in Qumran validate the Septuagint over the Masoretic text.
That is simply false. About 35% of the DSS align with the Masoretic texts, while less than 5% with the Septuagint and 5% with the Syriac.
6. It is very likely that there was no Council of Jamnia - there are no current records of it or its agenda or its accomplishments.
There certainly was a Council at Jamnia - It is the historical beginning of Rabbinic Judaism. That certainly was in it's agenda, else Rabbinic Judaism has no sanction, and could not be implemented... How Judaism would function in diaspora had to be defined - handed off, as it were - from the authority of the Temple priesthood, which could no longer function (as the Temple was gone).
I agree with you that canon probably wasn't discussed, as it probably never entered their mind. Canon is a fairly foreign concept. Canon only became necessary when the Temple was removed, and I doubt that canon was a problem just a generation away from it's destruction. However, since the LLX was live and active, and the Temple system destroyed, It may well be that canon was discussed in order to preserve orthodoxy.
What made the Alexandrian Septuagint wrong, or at least, able to be superseded by the hypothetical Jamnian text?
When there is a discrepancy, one should, no doubt, cede to the earliest form. Jewish leaders felt that the Masoretic Text was a better match to what was considered as orthodox in the Second Temple Period. Early historians (from that time), agreed with the Masoretic Text, as did (for the most part, 2 books differing AFAIR), the Pharisaic Mishnah.
It turns out they were right, as the DSS afirm.
Secondly, all of the extant texts other than the Masoretic are not available in Hebrew, and therefore cannot be positively guarded against having been added to, or changed - Unlike Rome, "every jot and tittle" must be correct in order for a translation to be valid. Without a doubt, the books in question have been Hellenized, and would be objectionable on that count alone. They do not even translate back into Hebrew in a handy fashion.
[...] And, with the Temple destruction in AD 70, do the Jews have authority over Christian Scripture?
By right, yes, they do. It is my firm belief that all of the NT was originally written in Hebrew (of a necessity). And there is evidence that I am right.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, several more copies of the Shem-Tov Hebrew Matthew have come to light. Now, while I believe this to be a less than accurate copy, there are many things which speak to an authentic Hebrew Matthew:
Particularly, there are word-puns which are prevalent in Hebrew, which provide a certain rhyme and flourish to Hebrew writing. These are prolific in this (Shem Tov) Hebrew version, and wholly absent in Matthew translated into Hebrew from the Greek, or from Aramaic, for that matter.
Secondly, there are better transliterations in the Hebrew Shem-Tov. As an instance, in the Greek "Blessed are the poor in spirit," I am told the Greek word for "poor" means something close to "wretched" or "destitute," which leaves the reader with a sense of spirit being in short supply - In the Shem-Tov family, the Hebrew word for "poor" in this phrase means "humble..." And it is not the same word used in Greek to Hebrew translations of the same phrase.
That is a significant, and better, expression.'
However, until we are blessed with the originals in some fashion, there is nothing particular for the Hebrews to authorize, other than the same sort of guessing which drives the translations offered today. The accents are lost, the meaning that can be derived from each individual letter cannot be determined.
I look forward to such Hebrew manuscripts being uncovered - And when they are, It will be the Hebrews that will confirm them as authentic. No doubt we will see then how faithfully Rome has executed her own versions... And by extension, Protestants as well.
WONDERFUL.
EXCELLENT.
LOVED THAT POST.
THANKS BIG.
Thank you. Very informative.