Anti-missionaries keep harping on the idea that the Septuagint was prepared by unknown Christian translators. This is argued despite that the introduction to Ben Sirah mentions Greek versions of the Neviim and Ketuvim. Also, Philo quotes from these sections in Greek as well. This means that the Greek Nach could not have originated within the church.
Instead, one needs to argue that there was a Greek Nach, and that it had been deliberately altered by Christian translators. In academic textual criticism, it is not acceptable to merely assert that a text has been merely corrupted. Such accusations require manuscript evidence.
I have real manuscript evidence that at least some of the New Testament readings of the Tanakh precede the New Testament itself. For example, there are 220 places where the Dead Sea Scrolls agree with the Septuagint against the Masoretic Text.
http://mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/Septuagint/spappendix.htm
My challenge to all anti-missionaries is: which Greek manuscripts show this to be the case? Which manuscripts show an earlier and pre-Christian Greek translation? To assert this without such evidence is akin to asserting that "Jews did 9/11 and methodically erased all evidence of their tracks." It is pure assertion without a shred of warrant.
http://thejewishhome.org/counter/j4jexposed.pdf
ReplyDeleteThis counter-missionary document discusses evidence that the Septuagint originally was a translation only of the Five Books of Moses, and Septuagint passages of the Prophets and Writings cannot be ascribed to the original 72 Jewish scholars.
My position is that arguing over the Septuagint is pointless and constitutes a wild goose chase. The Septuagint is not the Word of God -- the original Hebrew text is. THAT is what the debate should focus on.
-aunursa
Glad to see you posting again. I've missed your wisdom.
ReplyDeleteGod Bless,
InspiringPhilosophy