is a good one, and reminds me both, as to where I have misspoken, but points irrefutably also to the essence of the argument I had in mind at that time.
My own mis-speak concerning this, was allowing a previous claim I had seen here on FR threads, which proposed essentially that "New Testament persons could be seen as quoting books of the Apocrypha, and did so many dozens of times", to cloud my mind.
It was that claim which I had in mind, and spoke to, when I said "I doubt seriously 80%". Which as it turns out, was not the claim you made at all. My apologies.
I saw the "80%" and thought it a repeat of the previously proposed argument. My mistake.
When we go back to the link provided here first by yourself, looking at the charts there, is it not found that ALL, and I mean EVERY SINGLE 'Old Testament' quote/reference is from the "books" now found to be limited to those included in the Hebrew Scripture, and NONE of them, zip-zada-zero are sourced from the Apocrypha?
Which is why my own somewhat misguided;
You say;
No one here has willfully attempted to "discredit" any particular version of Septuagint in toto, but I myself have been pointing to fact that the inclusion of those "extra" works here in dispute, you know, the Apocrypha(?), should not be confused with the primary, the actual Word, which the Hebrew scholars maintain was established at the Great Assembly, as Zionist Conspirator has reminded us.
The discussion here currently is not about the translations themselves per se, but about which "books" are to be considered to be a part of the divine Revelation, which Christ Himself was the embodiment of, when He stood before the Sanhedrin.
This last part, is extremely important. Include here spurious works not part of the Word given to the Hebrews, long known to them as being the Word, and what do we end up with but an impure Christ?
Thankfully, with much relief, we are spared such.
Thank you, men of the Great Assembly for doing that which was set before you to do. Thank you Sanhedrin, for your slaying of the Sacrifice, done not in the Temple, the Second Temple which had never contained the true, original Ark of the Covenant*, but nonetheless was done in fulfillment of all Divine Law, grievous as it was, in it's fruition.
That is the Christ I know. I know no other.
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear BlueDragon!
I agree. The Septuagint is the name for the Koine Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament and it's history is easily discovered that the translation was a gradual process that went on for hundreds of years before Christ. No one doubts that Jesus as well as the Apostles would "quote" the Septuagint seeing as it WAS the Greek version in use and Koine Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire even in Israel. Though the Hebrew was ALWAYS read in the Jewish temple services, it was not the normal language used throughout the Eastern Mediterranean by every day people. That there remained Hebrew texts at all, proves that there WERE times where the Hebrew was quoted in the New Testament (i.e., Jesus reading from Isaiah in the Temple and St. Jerome offered, for example, Matt 2:15 and 2:23, John 19:37, John 7:38, 1 Cor. 2:9.[34] as examples not found in the Septuagint, but in Hebrew texts). It should not be a surprise that the Old Testament verses used by Jesus in His sermons and teachings would naturally be spoken in the language the common people spoke and that WAS Greek. This alone does not convince me that this was a tacit "blessing" of the Septuagint - and all it may or may not have contained - by Jesus but his sanction of what was the truth from God as spoken in the word.
We learn from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint that:
The authority of the larger group of "writings", out of which the ketuvim (in Biblical Hebrew: כְּתוּבִים "writings") is the third and final section of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), after Torah (instruction) and Nevi'im (prophets)) were selected, had not yet been determined, although some sort of selective process must have been employed because the Septuagint did not include other well-known Jewish documents such as Enoch or Jubilees or other writings that are now part of the Pseudepigrapha. It is not known what principles were used to determine the contents of the Septuagint beyond the "Law and the Prophets", a phrase used several times in the New Testament.
That word, anagignoskomena is a Greek word that means "things that are read", and we learn in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha#Anagignoskomena that:
Some editions add additional books, as Psalm 151 or the Odes, including the Prayer of Manasses. 2 Esdras is added as appendix in the Slavonic Bibles and 4 Maccabees as appendix in Greek editions.[23]
I disagree completely that the Jewish Sanhedrin would have rejected these Anagignoskomena as belonging with the revered and accepted Holy Scriptures only because of the use by first century Christians. In fact, the Septuagint as a whole was gradually rejected by observant Jews for a whole different reason. Again, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint:
What was perhaps most significant for the LXX, as distinct from other Greek versions, was that the LXX began to lose Jewish sanction after differences between it and contemporary Hebrew scriptures were discovered.[4] Even Greek-speaking Jews tended less to the LXX, preferring other Jewish versions in Greek, such as that of the 2nd century Aquila translation, which seemed to be more concordant with contemporary Hebrew texts.[10] While Jews have not used the LXX in worship or religious study since the 2nd century CE, recent scholarship has brought renewed interest in it in Judaic Studies.
So, I agree completely with BlueDragon that the Jews would NOT have abandoned books from their recognized body of Scripture because this new competing religion had accepted them. If that were so, why did they only choose these ones and not any of the others? It makes no sense at all since these disputed books contained NOTHING relevant to Christianity. They were NEVER accepted as scripture by the Jews. So, not only do we have the witness of Jewish antiquity against their divine origin, we also have no example of Jesus or any Apostle referring to them AS Scripture - no "it is written" or "thus sayeth the Lord" - but no direct quote that would confirm the approval of them as part of the Word of the Lord. I stand by my initial assertion that the main reason we have these knock-down, drag-out fights over them is because they were included in the Roman Catholic canon formally and finally at the Council of Trent and not segregated from the mutally agreed upon books that have ALWAYS been held as Holy Scripture. To admit the magesterium was wrong about a dogma is verboten or too hard of a thing to do for some. It opens a crack in the door of presumed infallibility they MUST keep closed at all cost.