SkipCaptcha
731
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 363:
Line 363: + + + +
→Discussion of the propriety of calling the LXX "the Bible of the Apostles.": new section
:St. Dionysios the Corinthian says that St. Paul and St. Peter were martyred at “about the same time.” [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 02:29, 3 May 2015 (EDT)
:St. Dionysios the Corinthian says that St. Paul and St. Peter were martyred at “about the same time.” [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 02:29, 3 May 2015 (EDT)
== Discussion of the propriety of calling the LXX "the Bible of the Apostles." ==
Are you sure that you want to say that the LXX is the Bible of the apostles? So far as I know, we do not have a copy of the LXX, only fragments & Greek Old Testament in great uncial manuscripts dated hundreds of years after the apostles. And those later uncial manuscripts may have readings influenced the the much earlier actual New Testament (its references to the Old Testament). Also, so far as I know, neither Vaticanus, nor Sinaiticus, nor Alexandrinus calls itself (or any part of it) "the Septuagint." The 12 apostles and Paul were Jewish. Is there some reason to deny that for them the OT (Tanach) was anything other than the Hebrew manuscript? If you compare the references (which are never actual quotations) in the NT to the OT and you find that these NT references agree with what we call the LXX, it seems to me hard to prove that what we call the LXX did not get those readings from the NT. Suppose that you wanted to produce the most accurate OT translation into Greek possible. Would you not give great weight to the NT Greek representations of the OT? ([[User:Thunkful2|Thunkful2]] ([[User talk:Thunkful2|talk]]) 01:03, 8 February 2016 (EST))