- The 2 great Jewish Historians Philo and Josephus both speak of the LXX translation and actually speak favorably of it.
Philo quoted extensively from the OT -- but not once from the Apocrypha (also referred to as deuterocanon). In that manner he is a witness against considering those writings included with the remainder of the Scriptures which were recognized and accepted among Jews as being Scripture, at least as widely as Alexandria, of Philo's own era.
Josephus' numbered list (once that is properly understood -- taking into account how the Jews traditionally organized the various books, which taken all together are Scripture) indicates the apocryphal writings were not considered by the Jews of Palestine to be Scripture (75 AD). Score two locales wherein the educated & erudite provide witness against inclusion of the so-called deuterocanonicals.
Josephus makes mention in other later writing, that he had received his own relatively formal religious instruction beginning at 19 years of age. Once one figures out how old Josephus was in 75 AD, and then winds the clock back to when he was 19 years old, one will be taken in the ol' Wayback machine, back -- how far? A decade? If only ten years, then consider that by year 65 AD significant amounts of what we know of as New Testament had been written (some of it, the ink barely dry?).
More than a few of the original Apostles were still alive in 65 A.D., or thereabouts, and the 1st generation witnesses to those individuals also alive.
Consider also, that at the time Josephus was sent at 19 years of age to be taught by a rabbi (as he writes in late-in-life memoir, that rabbi was identified as being among the most learned of the Pharisee sect -- same as Paul, please take note) that rabbi would simply have to have known, much prior to Josephus arriving to be taught by himself -- just what the corpus of Hebrew sacred Holy Scripture consisted of --- and what it did not.
Your own witnesses, in which you attempted to have put into the mouths "the LXX"(?) -- as far as what Jerome referred to as the (OT) Apocrypha, spew those books right back out in refutation of your own apparent efforts to propagandize for their inclusion.
You said;
- In addition, referring back to the Masoretic Text, the Dead Sea Scrolls, translated in Hebrew, agree more with the LXX, than the Masoretic text. In other words, the Codices I mentioned above, translated in Greek and from the LXX are more accurate than the Masoretic texts and the LXX is thus more accurate and is more like the Hebrew OT translations found in the Dead Sea scrolls.
You required sources from others for their own assertions ---
And where do you get this sort of information?
"Agree more with the LXX" -- in what way? In use of idiom? In a leaving out of phrases here and there which appear as later (and slight) embellishments in comparative texts, such as the difference between the Greek Uncials and the later miniscules?
Also, just what exact and precise version of "LXX" is being referenced in conjunction of assertions as the above? That has yet to be established, and in the context here, using more precise identifying terminology for Greek OT writings than simply "LXX" does seem to be called for.
What does this all mean, anyway? What are you driving at? Is there an ending destination which is hoped will be reached?
Oh, I think I know all right, for I have seen it all before, and as usual it was spread out over many comments...but which main aim obvious to myself is to assert every-which-way possible Sola Ecclesia being over Scripture, or else take Scripture down a notch (or many) to make that only as effective as the One Solo Ecclesia ™ seems to prefer to allow (of which it is asserted by ooodles and gobs of specious assertion that it alone is the One True Church, to the exclusion of all others ever in existence, having long ago in it's own imagination gobbled up all of whichever positive things may be found from among ekklesia, distant in both time and geographical location, to now attribute "all goodness" to the Church @ Rome-- if only by way of Ex post facto claim of "Supremacy" over all other ekklesia, including the selected ones which they claim were always "themselves").
Yet when making mention of Dead Sea Scrolls, and other so-called Diaspora Jews also -- if that inclusive of trying to assert that "the Jews" were widely mixed-up and mistaken in their own regard as what was truly passed down through the ages previous to them and what else which they may have viewed as 'authoritative teaching' (but still not on par with holy writ!), then a precautionary;
- Beware of mirages rising and quavering out from the heat of the deserts of this world...things which can be pointed towards, like ----> "there, He is out in the Desert!" mistaking those, for that which is truly of the Lord
should be given to all travelers whom would desire and seek after that which is truly of the Lord.
Existence of isolated scraps of a few of the books (here in dispute) among the Qumran discoveries, do not establish them as being within Hebrew "accepted canon" due to their mere presence there, any more than multiple other writings found among the scattered remains of scrolls converts those writings into being "Scripture" at the time of Christ.
Among the writings generally referred to as Dead Sea Scrolls there have been discovered a wide array of apocryphal writings which no one today argues for consideration of inclusion in anyone's Holy Writ, unless one desires to make the Essene to have been like some mythical desert nomad sect having wide-ranging, loosy-goosy regard as to what they themselves would regard as "Holy", as in Word of God, accepting just about anything that had "religious" sounding theme to be truly that...
The oldest extant versions of LXX, coming from 200+ years and later A.D. do not agree among themselves as to book contents of Apocrypha, while even there, the presence of some of those books do not automatically make any of those writings to be fully canonical to Christ, and the Jews with whom He in the flesh walked and talked with.
The Jews had what could be referred to as "ecclesiastical writings" but which to themselves were not necessarily confused with being Scripture. Yet, much of your own argument seems to rely upon such assertions (that their 'canon' "was not closed") or the possible mistake of *some* Diaspora Jews to fail to make distinction of what was by their very own religious tradition to be properly regarded as Scripture.
That this type of argument comes from those whom assert "tradition", relying upon that as being authoritative while overturning prior authoritative tradition, if such principles be allowed, could be used to re-visit those times in Christian history where NT apocrypha was indeed widely circulated within and among churches to now assert that those writings (such as the Shepard) were wrongly excluded.
That distinction, the difference between OT ecclesiastical writings (which in themselves upon occasion self-consciously pressed for inclusion within the rest of previously established corpus of Hebrew Scripture, such as in the case of Ben Sira) having been possibly lost to more than a few (but not all!) of the first few centuries A.D. Christians, does not mean that at some later date Christians can declare OT deuterocanon as having been what Christ himself and his Apostles themselves regarded as being truly Scripture.
That last point is of irrefutable importance. Christ came to fulfill the Law. Did He not also come to fulfill that which was properly prophesied? He surely did not come to fulfill those things + some other less-than-well known & defined additional corpus of pretend-to-be Holy Writ which could contain false prophesy and erroneous, misleading teachings.
From other comments of your own --- Alexandrian Greek versions of the OT texts are to be regarded as more accurate than later arising Masoretic texts?
Well alrighty then, lets have us some of that Old Time, Alexandrian Greek!
although I must confess the copy of Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle, (Athanasius, A.D. 367) Greek evidenced there (at that link) perhaps should not be regarded as truly representative of the lettering and font style which he likely(?) employed in 367 AD.
That sort of consideration, as to the evidence of there having been evolving differences between earlier centuries Uncial (all one 'upper' case, angular & blocky lettering) compared to the more abundant and later-in-origin "Byzantine" miniscules (more rounded, and varying among themselves in degree of 'cursive' flow) is beyond ability of my own to determine for myself firsthand, but for those whom are well-schooled , for those whom know the ropes so to speak --- the differing styles can help serve to establish date for particular texts -- and to a degree serve towards being among evidences considered in confirming geographical locale from where whichever extant copy originated from.
To recap the above;
The lettering styles themselves can assist in establishing both time and place of origination of now ancient texts. I cannot "do it" directly, but I can read about it.
For the above touched upon and yet more reasons, I have come to use NKJV (New King James Version) quite often, if but to open up view of that translation for reason of checking the footnotes which offer rapid & easy access to comparative textual differences.
The footnotes in brief touch upon what differences there are between the oldest NT texts in existence, oft identified as Alexandrian and/or "Uncial" style, and what has come down through many processes and hands, to be that particular (NKJV) translation. Footnotes there can also indicate where significant enough representation of early miniscules, also referred to as Byzantine (Greek) texts vary from the general translation, and at times from the most ancient of the 'Alexandrian' family or grouping of Greek texts.
All things considered, being among the more literal ~word~ translations (compared to those which seek to convey ~concepts~ put into English) the NKJV is something of a decent bridge between Latin influences of which Authorized King James does contain within itself rather organically, much of the slight "difference" between Latin and Greek text which had flowed thru Jerome's Latin influence.
If I am expressing this correctly;
The NKJV generally carries within itself corrective influences more directly from Majority Byzantine Greek than what Erasmus gathered and called Textus Receptus, all while having those brief footnotes showing just where, and in what manner the various collections of text do vary (once the differences are translated into English, anyway).
As such, used with due care, it can be a powerful tool towards greater understanding. Yet it does stand to be mentioned that IF RCC magesterium preferences could have been made to apply now today, as those were in past centuries sought to have them be, then those persons which have been among those who produced the generations of Nestle-Aland & United Bible Societies releases (of Scripture in Greek) would have likely as not have faced being burned at the stake --- their writings of translation summarily burned out-of-hand, much as "Lutheran bookbinders" were burnt during the Spanish Inquisition and "Bible Societies" in general -- if not in submission to and express written permission of the bishopric of Rome were suppressed & condemned from highest levels of the RCC (including papal decrees).
My, my, my, how times do change. Nowadays such laborers are generally accepted, relied upon & even honored.