Re: [lxx] Digest Number 72
- Dear Everyone:
In a previous message it was stated that the NT quotations of the OT differ from our received Hebrew text with the insinuation that it occurs in EVERY instance and is a "bad problem." That is simply not the case. Another participant referred interested people to the Christian Think Tank for an analysis of this isssue (www.Christian-thinktank.com) which is an excellent resource. There is an analysis on that page as to how many quotations ACTUALLY differ and it is far from in every instance.
As far as the idea that the "hypothesis" that the NT writers used the LXX being "just a hypothesis," and in some sense denigrating that idea by the use of these terms, that is unfair. Let's look at the facts. We have a LXX, versions of which predate the NT. We have a NT that quotes the OT in some places that agree with the LXX. We have places in the DSS that agree with the LXX. With these facts, it is quite reasonable to come to the conclusion that the NT writers used the LXX or a Hebrew manuscript that agrees with the LXX. Considering the history and purpose of the LXX it is quite reasonable. When we start bandying around terms like "hypothesis" in such a way that it becomes a slur, please be reminded that this is not "science" per se as it involves an unduplicatable event. Really the idea that they were quoting any manuscript at all and didn't get messages from little green men is only a "hypothesis."
- LGM = interestingly brilliant hypothesis! Of course,
it's nothing new--some people have been positing that
for a long time.
--- praisegod2@... wrote:
> Really the idea__________________________________________________
> that they were quoting any
> manuscript at all and didn't get messages from
> little green men is only a
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.