Septuagint still perfect?

What??? The originals were not translations, well, human translations.

ALL human translations have errors. Any other claim is biblical. The LXX had errors because it was a human translation.

Your comment about Acts 22 is an absolute red herring - the Holy Spirit gave us the perfect rendering - it was not a human translation, but a divine one.

 

Did you mean Biblical or not Biblical here??

Ed

 

whoops that's what comes from typing in dismay at 0600

 

BTW,if you're referencing my threads (in 2006)on your grandfather.I just want to let you know my stance has remained unchanged -- whether you think my statements about him were unwise or not.(I say this knowing that I am the primary person who has posted info concerning him).When I agree with someone like yourself -- I've informed you.When I disagree I communicate that as well.
Carry on.

 

Does any one have evidence that early church fathers "believed that the original Septuagint was perfect" (without error)? Justin Martyr, the only example given here, does NOT state that the LXX was "perfect", but rather a 'correct interpretation' --

But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy [king] of the Egyptians is a correct one... (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter LXXI) ​

The 'Septuagint' is not one version in a single document, but a term used to refer to all Old Greek translations of the Hebrew scriptures. Do not misunderstand Justin Martyr's citation of the legend as his own belief.

Again, I have not seen proof that any one ever did hold that any of the 'Septuagints' was "perfect". We don't know for certain that Jesus read from a Greek scroll; all we know is that the words that are recorded do word-for-word correspond with the Masoretic Text we have now. I tend to think that Hebrew may have still been employed in the Temple at Jerusalem during Jesus' lifetime. The king's revisors recognized that the LXX --

It is certain that that translation was not so sound and so perfect, but that it needed in many places correction;... (The Translators to the Reader, preface of AV1611)​

Yes, a sufficiently good translation is God's word; this was the point that the AV translators made --

... and who had been so sufficient for this work as the Apostles or apostolic men? Yet it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to them to take that which they found [the LXX] (the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient)...(The Translators to the Reader)​

Except for the Dead Sea scrolls (which are actually the lesser portion of the total Qumram find, and very fragmentary) the extant MT manuscripts date from approximately the 9/10th century, making the extant LXX copies about 500 years older.

 

The Greek LXX is different than the Hebrew Masoretic Text. Neither one was written by the prophets (and their autographs have presumably perished) therefore it cannot be determined which one is the more "accurate" to the 'originals'.

 

I don't think you'll find any documents saying the ECF believed that the LXX was perfect. But you do have Clement quoting Judith and Tobit so you have to wonder at the RCC and the Orthodox inclusion of those books.

 

Concerning whether or not the Septuagint existed BC, here is a quote from Frederic Kenyon: "The Pentateuch (of the LXX--JoJ) was translated into Greek in Egypt before the middle of the third century B. C. There is confirmatory evidence of this in the fact that the version of Genesis was used by a writer of the name of Demetrius, who lived in the last quarter of that century" (The Text of the Greek Bible, p. 25). :type:

 

I'd love to see these references, but when I follow the link it says, "[FONT=helvetica,arial]Sorry. Access denied. You do not have access to this unlisted site."
[/FONT]

 

Actually, I wasn't thinking of your 2006 threads. But it doesn't bother me at all if you disagree with my grandfather. For crying out loud, I disagree with him on some things. What bothered me then was the language you used. Since then I've watched you on the BB, and as far as I know you have never again used such rhetoric. So carry on. :type:

 

It wasn't a matter of mere disagreement.Your granfather deliberately slandered specific people and charactertized folks holding to Calvinism with blatant falshoods.His rhetoric in that book should first be examined.

 

And I completely disagree, and believe I proved you wrong. But let's not go there. Let's not derail this thread.

 

I'm not sure what you mean here, since Granddad wasn't a Calvinist, unless you are talking about John R. Rice's belief that you can't lose your salvation. But I don't want to derail this thread.