Replies

Prior to their rejection of Christ the Jews read the Septuagint, that is, the Deuterocanon as well as the Hebrew canon.

Nope. As Josephus pointed out --- they did not accept the so-called deuterocanon, including the Maccabean works, and likely set the writings of Ben Sirach aside as something akin to early Targum -- not to be confused with Holy Writ itself.

Try A survey of the Old Testament in this review, pages 490, 492-494.

As found some synopsis of here http://www.coptic.net/articles/thestoryofthebible.txt the Jamnia idea, as to claims the Jews "ripped out" parts of THEIR OWN "bible" as it were simply because of Jesus and his followers;;

When the destruction of the Jerusalem and the Temple was imminent, a great rabbi belonging to the school of Hillel in the Pharisaic party--Yochanan ben Zakkai by name--obtained permission from the Romans to reconstitute the Sanhedrin on a purely spiritual basis at Jabneh (Jamnia), between Joppa and Azotus (Ashod). Some of the discussions which went on at Jamnia were handed down by oral transmission and ultimately recorded in the rabbinical writings. Their debates focussed on whether canonical recognition should be accorded to some books (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs and Esther). The upshot of the Jamnia debates was the firm acknowledgement of all these books as Holy Scripture

with the footnote there leading to F.F. Bruce, as noted in "The Books and The Parchments", Rev. ed. Westwood: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1963.

The so-called deuterocanon wasn't even discussed there(!), as best can be pieced together. It was a non-issue. Coming so close to what Josephus had publicly outlined as to what Hebrew holy writ was to the Greco-Roman world in his own effort to explain the Hebrews to the rest of the world, it is simply impossible that the Hebrews would do such a thing.

Melito -- surviving through Eusebius found the Hebrews did not regard what would centuries later be called deuterocanon as part of their own Holy Writ -- drawing a line from Josephus (A.D. 70) to himself (A.D. 180 or thereabouts).

As daniel1212 made mention of -- Philo, writing just previous to time of Christ

Timothy was a native of Lystra and his father was Greek, a strong indication that his exposure to scripture was through Septuagint and therefore "all" in St. Paul's writing is a reference to the complete Catholic Canon, not to the Protestant redaction.

Mere assertions won't cut it, not in the face of the abundant evidence to the contrary -- some of which I just touched upon in the note to which you here gave reply, and in the notes of many others on this thread who again and again cite factual evidences to the contrary of your own suppositions, assumptions and opinions (as to alleged contents of Septuagint having been considered canonical to the Jews).

Which Septuagint version would be the "right" one? As I pointed out to another here already also -- the oldest pair of extant Greek Septuagint do NOT agree as to their contents -- and those two are from the late second century (or thereabouts).

In the lower potions of this #121 there is much well enough documented info that has a bearing upon the discussion here, in how it once again has turned to OT canon issues, with those as afar as I can tell be attempted to be used as some sort of sick leverage against those pesky "Protestants" -- whom you more or less condemn (possibly to hell?).

I'm not sure why all this goes on, other than it appearing to me a bunch of bluffing to try and hold onto the Romanist apologetics which are used in some quarters to 'bash' Protestant views in general -- thus giving succor and reassurance to [Roman] Catholics.

Well guess what?

It is BACKFIRING on you, big-time. At least for those who dig into the history of these sort of things and understand what they read -- and do not simply apply a "the Church is inerrant" type of thinking at each juncture where the going may get rough.