Changes

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 by 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))

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 by 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))

:(Took me a while to read the above with a magnifying glass.) Your objection apparently is based on the supposition that large changes were made in the Greek text as originally received and read by the apostles and transmitted and carefully preserved after their time by scribes in scriptoriums in the Greek-speaking apostolic Christian Church and no one wrote about or protested such a proposed corruption of sacred writ as you present above. This flies in the face of the fact that historically in the first five centuries, no evidence of any debate or controversy regarding such a mutilation of the text as you suggest is extant, yet the editorial changes put forth by Marcion, for example, are amply denounced and attested. The witness of the traditional text of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Christian tradition of a horror of altering the transmitted Sacred Holy Word of God translated into Greek by Rabbinical scholars before the time of Christ and handed down to the time of the apostles, stand as solid evidence against your suggestion of an "impropriety" in calling the LXX the Bible of the apostles. With this, it is rather on ''your'' part "hard to prove" your speculative opinion and position objecting to the statement that the LXX is the Bible of the first century apostles. From this, I do not believe that you have directly compared the OT passages in the NT as found in Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, or Alexandrinus. You do not say in your statement above that they disagree. In fact, they don't. Any reader can verify this. Access the exact facimiles of these three, available online; access the various online sites rendering multiple language texts of the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament, including the several Greek witnesses, such as ''Tischendorf''. Reference the multiple ''critical editions'' of the New Testament and Old Testament, which explicitly note where differences in the extant copies of the texts appear. And do not ignore the fact that the rigorously attested LXX as a whole includes those books and parts of books rejected by the 16th century Protestant Reformers as [[apocrypha]], which the Orthodox insisted were inspired scripture handed down from the time of the apostles, prompting the Orthodox authorities to reject the proposed Protestant canon of scripture when it was proposed to them. The Catholic Church too, in response to what it regarded as "heretical corruptions of sacred scripture", dogmatically affirmed which scriptures, books and parts of books, as handed down and traditionally used were inspired. A court of law would dismiss your argument with an "''objection''" that it is "''speculation''" and "''argumentive''", and therefore inadmissible as evidence or testimony. Your statement is without any substantiated historical foundation. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 02:50, 8 March 2016 (EST)

:(Took me a while to read the above with a magnifying glass.) Your objection apparently is based on the supposition that large changes were made in the Greek text as originally received and read by the apostles and transmitted and carefully preserved after their time by scribes in scriptoriums in the Greek-speaking apostolic Christian Church and no one wrote about or protested such a proposed corruption of sacred writ as you present above. This flies in the face of the fact that historically in the first five centuries, no evidence of any debate or controversy regarding such a mutilation of the text as you suggest is extant, yet the editorial changes put forth by Marcion, for example, are amply denounced and attested. The witness of the traditional text of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Christian tradition of a horror of altering the transmitted Sacred Holy Word of God translated into Greek by Rabbinical scholars before the time of Christ and handed down to the time of the apostles, stand as solid evidence against your suggestion of an "impropriety" in calling the LXX the Bible of the apostles. ''See [http://biblehub.com/multi/2_corinthians/4-2.htm 2 Corinthians 4:2] and [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/2_corinthians/4-2.htm# commentaries]''. With this, it is rather on ''your'' part "hard to prove" your speculative opinion and position objecting to the statement that the LXX is the Bible of the first century apostles. From this, I do not believe that you have directly compared the OT passages in the NT as found in Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus. You do not say in your statement above that they disagree. In fact, they don't. Any reader can verify this. Access the exact facimiles of these three, available online; access the various online sites rendering multiple language texts of the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament, including the several Greek witnesses, such as ''Tischendorf''. Reference the multiple ''critical editions'' of the New Testament and Old Testament, which explicitly note where differences in the extant copies of the texts appear. And do not ignore the fact that the rigorously attested LXX as a whole includes those books and parts of books rejected by the 16th century Protestant Reformers as [[apocrypha]], which the Orthodox insisted were inspired scripture handed down from the time of the apostles, prompting the Orthodox authorities to reject the proposed Protestant canon of scripture when it was proposed to them. The Catholic Church too, in response to what it regarded as "heretical corruptions of sacred scripture", dogmatically affirmed which scriptures, books and parts of books, as handed down and traditionally used were inspired. A court of law would dismiss your argument with an "''objection''" that it is "''speculation''" and "''argumentive''", and therefore inadmissible as evidence or testimony. Your statement is without any substantiated historical foundation. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 02:50, 8 March 2016 (EST)