Doug Shaver

Yep.

I reject the concept because I find every specific argument to be fallacious.

Yes, but I haven't done that.

They can do all the branding and labeling they want. The question ought to be whether they can demonstrate the circularity or illogicality.

You mean, the arguments only convince people who already believe the conclusion?

spin

I didn't notice a direct response, Dave, so let me just say that Josephus knew of the tradition of the seventy-two which gave us LXX. The story is also found in the letter of Aristeas (not easy to date) and deals with the request of Ptolemy II for a copy of the Hebrew scriptures. What the Hebrew books meant were at the time may be hard to define, but we should at least include the pentateuch. And in fact a few Greek fragments were found at Qumran.

I get the idea from Josephus that not all the Hebrew texts were translated in his time, so the notion of the LXX was an evolving one (but then so was the torah).


spin

mountainman

While this perspective is well and good it does not deal
with claims relating to Eusebius and/or Eusebius/Origen.

The basis of controversy in this area is the claim that
the greek translations of the LXX given by Origen, and
then later used by Eusebius were in fact the same
translations used in Constantine's Bible 331 CE, and
thus -- according to many scholars --- from there
to our most ancient surviving codexes.

This transmission of the Hebrew texts via the greek
translation of Origen, via the transmission of Eusebius
may be viewed as a separate issue to the transmission
by Eusebius (if any) of the New Testament corpus in
the greek language.

The Origenist Controversy may also be relevant to the
more complete educational service in regard to the
role of Origen, his writings and their transmission.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown