He used the versions of the Ebonite’s’ Aquilla (c. 128), Symmachus (c. 180-192 A.D.), and Theodotin (c. 161-181) for the Hexapla reconstruction, along with three other anonymous translations that have become known as the Quinta, the Sexta, and Septima. Is this true or not?
Or are you laboring under the misconception that the Septuagint today can be found someplace earlier than Origen's Hexapla? If so, then where is the Septuagint found earlier than Origen's Hexapla?
And tell us where there can be found any manuscript evidence of a pre-Christian Septuagint.
And tell us where there can be found any manuscript evidence of a pre-Christian Septuagint
As I understand Christ quoted from the Septuagint.
Uncle Chip, let me ask you a question: is your assertion that the only legitimate Old Testament is the Jewish Masoretic Text (the oldest extant manuscript of which dates from about 900 C.E.)?
If so, then to discuss the Bible with you, do we need to stipulate that the Masoretic Text, and only that, is the Hebrew text you will accept in translation?
And if that is so, given that no human being has spoken ancient Hebrew as a native speaker for at least 1500 years, every version - even the 900 C.E. parchment of the Masoretic Text itself when read by a Hebrew scholar - is read in translation into his native language (not one person on Earth is capable of reading ancient Hebrew as a native; no human being has a native proficiency in ancient Hebrew idiom, and no human being can acquire it, there being no ancient Hebrew-speaker to consult), which translation into English do you accept as authoritative?
The debate about the Septuagint becomes moot, doesn't it, if I accept your premise that the Septuagint is something you totally reject, and accept your demand that the translation of the Old Testament be limited to the Hebrew Canon, and be limited to a translation of the Masoretic Text?
I am willing to do just that, in order to have a fruitful discussion with you, but in order to do it I have to know which English translation you are willing to accept as authoritative? All of the Christian translations of which I am aware cross-reference the Septuagint, the Vulgate, or other maunscripts for their translations. I know of none that exclusively binds itself to the Word of the Lord contained in the Masoretic Text.
Only the Jewish translation does that, to my knowledge.
So, are you willing to accept the Jewish Publication Society's translation of the Masoretic Text as the authoritative English-language translation of the only PURE Hebrew Old Testament?
As it is published today. Well, now you are changing the goal posts.
The Septuagint as it is published today comes primarily from several different recensions, one of which is the Codex Vaticanus (Codex B), which is of Egyptian origin. The others are the Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Sinaiticus. The Codex Vaticanus (Codex B) is popular because it is believed to be the oldest (nearly) complete copy of the Greek Bible in existence. The Roman edition of the Septuagint (1587) was based on the Vaticanus. Maybe Kolokotronis can inform us about the version preferred by the Orthodox.
However, Codex B did not come from Origen’s Hexapla as you claim. Rather, it belongs to the family of manuscripts used by Origen to compose his Hexapla. Origen duplicated the Septuagint in his Hexapla. The manuscript that did borrow from the Hexapla is the Alexandrinus Codex.
Or are you laboring under the misconception that the Septuagint today can be found someplace earlier than Origen's Hexapla? If so, then where is the Septuagint found earlier than Origen's Hexapla?
I’m not sure what you mean by the Septuagint being found “someplace earlier than Origen’s Hexapla”. The Septuagint was used by Origen to compose the Hexapla, so the Septuagint was of earlier origins than the Hexapla. If you are asking if the original manuscript of the Septuagint is available for examination, the answer is no. But if that is your requirement to prove that the Septuagint existed, you also need to realize that we don’t even have Origen’s Hexapla (a much later work), which seems to be your touchstone.
And tell us where there can be found any manuscript evidence of a pre-Christian Septuagint.
The Dead Sea Scrolls. Also, Hebrew manuscripts found at Qumran more closely follow the Septuagint we have now than they do the Masoretic texts.
Please tell us about earlier pre-Christian manuscripts of your canon. And what is the earliest complete manuscript now available containing your full OT canon. Before you answer, please note that even the Dead Sea Scrolls don’t contain a complete manuscript of your OT canon.
The fact still remains that the Septuagint pre-dates Origen, which is the topic of this thread.