Changes

== Objections to the Septuagint ==

== Objections to the Septuagint ==

Any translation is automatically suspect, if only because of differences in grammar and idiom between the source and target languages.<ref>See [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Sirach+1%3A1&version=DRA Sirach 1:1 Douay-Rheims 1899 American edition (DRA) (biblegateway.com)] ''Ben-Sira's introduction to the Book of Ecclesiasticus''

Any translation is automatically suspect, if only because of differences in grammar and idiom between the source and target languages.<ref>See [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Sirach+1%3A1&version=DRA Sirach 1:1 Douay-Rheims 1899 American edition (DRA) (biblegateway.com)] ''Ben-Sira's introduction to the Book of Ecclesiasticus''

:"...for the Hebrew words have not the same force in them when translated into another tongue. And not only these, but the law also itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language."</ref> Also, later Jews were suspicious of anything that had a non-Jewish influence, and so kept most of the original Hebrew texts<ref>All of the Old Testament books rejected as [[apocrypha]] from the 2nd century onward by rabbinical authority have been found to have originally been Hebrew texts, with the sole exception of the [[Book of Wisdom|Wisdom of Solomon]]. See [[Council of Jamnia]]. Discoveries of Hebrew and Aramaic manucripts of [[Book of Tobit|Tobit]], [[Book of Sirach|ben Sira (Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus)]], [[Epistle of Jeremiah]] in the caves at [[Qumran]] near the [[Dead Sea]], the "[[Dead Sea Scrolls]]", demonstrate that a Hebrew or Aramaic origin of a text included in the Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures in the Septuagint accepted by Christians was not the sole criterion for inclusion or exclusion in the Hebrew canon, but included consideration of (rejected) evidence of content which supported Christian doctrine. Linguistic evidence shows that other Septuagint books which were excluded by rabbinical authority after A.D. 90 certainly had an original Hebrew or Aramaic text. See

:"...for the Hebrew words have not the same force in them when translated into another tongue. And not only these, but the law also itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language."</ref> Also, later Jews were suspicious of anything that had a non-Jewish influence, and so kept most of the original Hebrew texts<ref>All of the Old Testament books rejected as [[apocrypha]] from the 2nd century onward by rabbinical authority have been found to have originally been Hebrew texts, with the sole exception of the [[Book of Wisdom|Wisdom of Solomon]]. See [[Council of Jamnia]]. Discoveries of Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts of [[Book of Tobit|Tobit]], [[Book of Sirach|ben Sira (Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus)]], [[Epistle of Jeremiah]] in the caves at [[Qumran]] near the [[Dead Sea]], the "[[Dead Sea Scrolls]]", demonstrate that a Hebrew or Aramaic origin of a text included in the Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures in the Septuagint accepted by Christians was not the sole criterion for inclusion or exclusion in the Hebrew canon, but included consideration of (rejected) evidence of content which supported Christian doctrine. Linguistic evidence shows that other Septuagint books which were excluded by rabbinical authority after A.D. 90 certainly had an original Hebrew or Aramaic text. See

*[http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/apocrypha.html Jewish Virtual Library. Jewish Holy Scriptures: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, by Michael E. Stone]

*[http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/apocrypha.html Jewish Virtual Library. Jewish Holy Scriptures: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, by Michael E. Stone]

*[http://archive.churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/Cway_102_ApocryphaBackground.pdf BACKGROUND AND HISTORY TO THE APOCRYPHA, By David Phillips] Article reprinted from Cross†Way Issue Autumn 2006 No. 102 (archive.churchsociety.org)

*[http://archive.churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/Cway_102_ApocryphaBackground.pdf BACKGROUND AND HISTORY TO THE APOCRYPHA, By David Phillips] Article reprinted from Cross†Way Issue Autumn 2006 No. 102 (archive.churchsociety.org)