Taking your points in reverse order:
4. Yes, there are a couple places where the NT relies on a translation more similar to the MT than the LXX. But 85% of the time, the LXX is the closer one.
3. Yes, the MT was from the 7th to 9th centuries, but it is so similar to much older texts that translators refer to the entire tradition of which it is the culmination of as the MT. “Mesorah” refers to the transmission of a tradition far older than the MT.
2. There is no evidence that any book was added to the Septuagint (bearing in mind that the translation took place over many decades; the original work of the 72 was only the Books of the Law.) But the Septuagint was universally accepted from sects of Christianity which lost contact with Rome long before the Council of Nicea. So you’re arguing that several Christian groups independently added books to the Greek Bible, making no mention of the addition, and with no historical record of their act. Some of these non-Catholic groups may add books to the canon, or have “fuzzy canons,” but they all include the full canon of the Septuagint.
And here’s a key point: There was a marked religious difference already established by the time of Jesus between the Hellenic Jews and the non-Hellenic Jews. Whereas the Palestinian Jews were divided among the Saducees and the Samaritans (who regarded only the 5 Books of the Law as divinely inspired), the Pharisees (who regarded the Prophets — which includes the Books of David, such as the Psalms, but not Daniel — as inspired, but not the Khetuvim), and the Essenes, who included a much larger canon. Only after Christ did the Jews solidify their canon; it makes little sense to suppose that sometime AFTER this point, somehow the Hellenists added books to the canon.
“And here’s a key point: There was a marked religious difference already established by the time of Jesus between the Hellenic Jews and the non-Hellenic Jews. Whereas the Palestinian Jews were divided among the Saducees and the Samaritans (who regarded only the 5 Books of the Law as divinely inspired), the Pharisees (who regarded the Prophets — which includes the Books of David, such as the Psalms, but not Daniel — as inspired, but not the Khetuvim), and the Essenes, who included a much larger canon. Only after Christ did the Jews solidify their canon; it makes little sense to suppose that sometime AFTER this point, somehow the Hellenists added books to the canon.”
This is an old claim based on the alleged council of Jamnia, to which there is no evidence.
“The Council of Jamnia or Council of Yavne is a hypothetical late 1st-century council at which the canon of the Hebrew Bible was alleged to have been finalized. First proposed by Heinrich Graetz in 1871, this theory was popular for much of the twentieth century. It was increasingly questioned from the 1960s onward, and is no longer considered plausible.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia
It’s actually the same exact claim made on the other thread on this same matter, so we’re literally going through all these same assumptions one by one again.
“But the Septuagint was universally accepted from sects of Christianity which lost contact with Rome long before the Council of Nicea. So you’re arguing that several Christian groups independently added books to the Greek Bible, making no mention of the addition, and with no historical record of their act. “
First of all, this is complete nonsense, every bit of it. Secondly, what you’re trying to claim is that no one knew about these “extra” books that were being added to Bibles, because, even though you just got done admitting that there is no evidence for your position (that the LXX always contained the translated apocrypha with it), you go on to make the reverse claim, that there was no evidence that the LXX always contained these extra books, such as the Shepard of Hermes which is included in the Codex Sinaiticus, or Maccabees up to the 4th book.
I don’t think you have any clue what it is you are writing about here, to be honest. Every comment you make literally feels to me like creative fiction.
How can you even talk about there being no “historical record,” when in the other thread, you got done lamenting to me about Athanasius including the Shepard of Hermes and the Didache as part of the apocrypha, along with Tobit, Judith etc? If anything, the Shepard has a better history than the rest of your apocrypha, because Irenaeus was even aware of who the author was, when it was made, and where it was made.
Do you think you can overwhelm me with nonsensical posts, so that I will suddenly forget the facts and buy your flash fiction?