No, the LXX illuminates the thinking of the pre-Apostolic Jewish translators. Which is what makes it so useful: When it translates almah in Isa. 7:14 as parthenos, "virgin," no one can accuse the translators of having a Christian bias.
Anyway, see my most recent post to Kosta: The NT authors did not always favor the LXX, so your thesis just went right out the window.
I would say that new translations are useless and many are outright harmful.
Not all translations are created equal, granted. But at the same time, linguistic scholarship did not freeze in the fourth (or seventeenth) century, nor did textual criticism, so translations that take into account up-to-date scholarship are a must.
Jerome went back to the Hebrew because he understood the futility of getting an accurate reading doing translations of translations. If you're getting your English translation from the Vulgate, then you dishonor his memory.
If one wants to understand better the Vulgate, he should ask the Church for guidance or look at the Greek and Hebrew originals for clarification -- exactly what St. Jerome did.
I do go to the Church for guidance--just not your church. And looking at the Greek and Hebrew originals for clarification is exactly what I've been arguing this whole time. Nice to see that you agree with me.
The point was that St. Paul was more likely than the other, more hellenized disciples to use the Hebrew scripture . . .
lol My friend, the Galileans were more prone to speak Aramaic than Greek (why do you think Peter and John needed help from translators?), and they used Hebrew in the synagogues. We also know from the DSS that Hebrew, not just Aramaic, was in common use in Judea, so if they were going down for the Feasts and preaching the Gospel there, they most likely could read the Scriptures in Hebrew as well as in the Targums.
I am by the way, waiting for you to name non-Pauline instances where, you say, the quoting of the Old Testament i the New followes the Hebrew text.
Again, see my post to Kostas.
Of course. This is because the Hebrew Tradition is deprecated in Christianity to a considerable extent. This says nothing of the role of the Christian Tradition.
Actually, the Apostles went out of their way to keep Jewish Tradition as well as the Torah (cf. Acts 21:20-26)--they just didn't make it a requirement for Gentiles. Their disputes with the Pharisees were over the latter's hardened hearts and in letting their traditions violate the Torah in many (not all) cases. Moreover, their disputes were only with a subset of the Pharisees, since Sha'ul and many other Jewish believers remained a part of the Pharisee sect (Acts 15:5, 23:6). In fact, Yeshua's actions and teachings were not that far removed from the Pharisees (in particular, with Rabbi Hillel, who died when Yeshua was just 10 or 13), and the fact that He was invited into their homes for table-fellowship indicates that He followed their traditions closely enough to be considered "clean" for fellowship!
But if you, not knowing or understanding the historical and cultural backdrop of the NT, want to denigrate the Pharisees and the Jews in general, so be it. However, don't think that you can judge them for adding their traditions on top of Scripture so as to violate it and get away with doing the exact same thing! A Pharisee by any other name . . .
Could be, but what the Jewish authority outside of Christianity considered canon is simply not relevant, whether at Jamnia or at other times.
On the contrary, Jewish authority before Christianity as to the canon is very important, since it tells us what Bible Yeshua and His disciples used. Josephus and Jamnia may have recorded their canonical lists shortly after the advent of our Lord, but they were not making up anything new; rather, like the counsels that discussed the NT canon in the fourth century, they were merely ratifying and passing on what was already long-established by their time.
About how long, do you figure?
It is a fascinating discussion you are inviting me to eavesdrop upon, both here and above; thank you!
"Actually, the Apostles went out of their way to keep Jewish Tradition as well as the Torah (cf. Acts 21:20-26)--they just didn't make it a requirement for Gentiles."
Let's assume that what you say is correct. What changed by the late 1st century to cause +Ignatius of Antioch to write in his Letter to the Magnesians:
"It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity, that so every tongue which believeth might be gathered together to God."
I am still waiting on a non-pauline example of MT preference. All you showed Kosta was that the NT writers corrected both from time to time (perhaps, because they were quoting form memory). You did not show that anyone other than St. Paul preferred MT.
the LXX illuminates the thinking of the pre-Apostolic Jewish translators
That too, but to me as a Christian it is the thinking of the Apostles that is of paramount importance. The Hebrew original is of course important, but it is the mind of the Early Church that I need to know.
I do go to the Church for guidance--just not your church
You do not go to anything that looks for historical continuity with the Aposotles if your basic theology is Baptist, as I suspect it to be.
the Apostles went out of their way to keep Jewish Tradition as well as the Torah (cf. Acts 21:20-26)--they just didn't make it a requirement for Gentiles.
True. In other words, the Church as a whole deprecated the Jewish tradition even though it did not wish to purge it. This is generally what we see about Tradition: that its criticism is always pointed against a particular superstition or when used a s a hypocritical cover. In generall, Christ and the Apostles did not mind the Christian Tradition at all, and when used in the general sense, as in 2 Thess 2:14, it is praised.
Jewish authority before Christianity as to the canon is very important, since it tells us what Bible Yeshua and His disciples used
They were using the Septuagint alongside with the Hebrew scripture, did they not? They read the Deuterocanon. So should we.