[kosta50]

HD: Our friend Kosta doesn't even believe in the existance of the full Septuagint as he just posted. Are you willing to take that stand?

OR: On this I agree with Kosta. There is not, nor ever has been, such a thing as a Septuagint.

Well, I never said that. The pre-Christian era Septuagint was completed, gradually, by about 150 BC. We just don't know with certainty what books were in that canon because only seven pre-Christian books are known to exist.

The next complete canon of the Septuagint (LXX) is in Codices known as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (written c. 350 AD), which is to say about 500 years later, and in the case of Alexandrinus, almost 600 years later! (note also that Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus are not exactly identical either).

By comparison, the earliest complete Jewish Masoretic Text (MT) is another 500 years removed from the Greek!  The only thing that the MT has to boast about is the claim that allegedly its verison of Isaiah matched "perfectly" the Qumran (Dead Sea Scroll) version of Isaiah. Even if true, that doesn't mean we can say the rests does!

The fact that post-Christian era rabbis tried to re-write the LXX and bring in closer to the MT (and that at least three such versions—Theodoton, Symmachus and Aquila—existed in the 2nd century AD) shows that scriptural manipulation existed so much so that Origen called on the rabbis to provide a version of their scriptures that was not fraudulent!

What are we to say of the two versions of Luke's Gospel (one so-called "long" and the other one "short")? Which one is genuine? When it comes to biblical manuscripts nothing is clearly black and white.

Cerveza makes states correctly that the New Testament authors quoted from the Septuagint, but doesn't tell us which Septuagint! Let's not forget that there are no first century New Testament manuscripts to reveal what that version of LXX was. The earliest extant copies and fragments of the New Testament are 2nd century AD copies, when at least three Septuagint variants were in circulation.

And there are serious theological variations in the Septuagint in such passages as Isaiah 9:5/6, and other verses.

For example:

For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.  [Greek version]

and

For to us a child is born. To us a son is given; and the government will be on his shoulders. His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.  [Western version]

It's like night and day! Also other translations change the tense. For instance, the Catholic NAB version puts it in the future tense

For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and the government will rest on His shoulders; and His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace

The Jewish translations also vary. For instance this English-version Tanakh puts the same verse in the past tense, as something already accomplished:

For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace." [chabad.org]

or

For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom; [JPS]

So, clearly, not only do the version of the Septuagint vary, but the Englih translations are clearly doctrinally "harmonized" (read: corrupted!).

[OLD REGGIE]

HD: Our friend Kosta doesn't even believe in the existance of the full Septuagint as he just posted. Are you willing to take that stand?

OR: On this I agree with Kosta. There is not, nor ever has been, such a thing as a Septuagint.

Well, I never said that. The pre-Christian era Septuagint was completed, gradually, by about 150 BC. We just don't know with certainty what books were in that canon because only seven pre-Christian books are known to exist.

First, I apologize if I misunderstood your belief, or lack thereof, in one, authentic, complete Septuagint ever having been completed.

However, I can't help myself. To say "The pre-Christian era Septuagint was completed, gradually, by about 150 BC. We just don't know with certainty what books were in that canon because only seven pre-Christian books are known to exist."

Completed gradually from what? Bits and pieces? Fragrements located in many different places?

If we don't know with certainty what books were in that "complete" canon how is it possible to know one complete canon ever existed in the beginning?

As Bill O'Reilly says "I am a simple man". This simple man is of the belief you make a compelling case for the lack of a single, complete, authentic Septuagint.

Are we possibly talking past each other?