[boatbums]

Discredit the Septuagint and there is no New Testament.

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

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:

As the work of translation progressed gradually, and new books were added to the collection, the compass of the Greek Bible came to be somewhat indefinite. The Pentateuch always maintained its pre-eminence as the basis of the canon; but the prophetic collection (out of which the Nevi'im were selected) changed its aspect by having various hagiographa incorporated into it. Some of the newer works, those called anagignoskomena in Greek, are not included in the Jewish canon. Among these books are Maccabees and the Wisdom of Ben Sira. Also, the Septuagint version of some works, like Daniel and Esther, are longer than those in the Masoretic Text.[19] Some of the later books (Wisdom of Solomon, 2 Maccabees, and others) apparently were not translated, but composed in Greek.

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:

The Septuagint, the pre-eminent Greek version of the Old Testament, contains books that are not present in the Hebrew Bible. These texts are not traditionally segregated into a separate section, nor are they usually called apocrypha. Rather, they are referred to as the Anagignoskomena (ἀναγιγνωσκόμενα, "things that are read"). The anagignoskomena are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Jesus Sirach, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremy (in the Vulgate this is chapter 6 of Baruch), additions to Daniel (The Prayer of Azarias, Susanna and Bel and the Dragon), additions to Esther, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, i.e. all the Deuterocanonical plus 3 Maccabees and 1 Esdras.[23]

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:

Starting approximately in the 2nd century CE, several factors led most Jews to abandon use of the LXX. The earliest gentile Christians of necessity used the LXX, as it was at the time the only Greek version of the Bible, and most, if not all, of these early non-Jewish Christians could not read Hebrew. The association of the LXX with a rival religion may have rendered it suspect in the eyes of the newer generation of Jews and Jewish scholars.[10] Instead, Jews used Hebrew/Aramaic Targum manuscripts later compiled by the Masoretes; and authoritative Aramaic translations, such as those of Onkelos and Rabbi Yonathan ben Uziel.[33]

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.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thanks for a good discussion --- I love looking into these Scriptures.

In what some call the Intertestamental period, God was preparing the Jewish people for the imminent coming of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Just look at all the things that were happening within Judaism during this period ---truly God's Providence at work:

• Translation of the Jewish scriptures into Koine Greek (Septuagint), greatly facilitating its being spread beyond Judea
• Establishment of synagogues, intense interest in Scripture at the "congregational" level in “houses of prayer” and “houses of study” (i.e. beyond just the Temple scribes);
• Greek and Aramaic now the common language of the Jewish people;
• Translation and production of copies of the Scriptures and other related writings, in various language editions (e.g. Dead Sea Scrolls);
• During Second Temple Judaism, new theological themes gained prominence:
  • Eternal Life ("what will become of me at the end of my earthly existence?");
  • Apocalypse ("What will come at the end of the earth itself?")
  • Divine Judgment "How will the nations be judged?")
• The writing of the Deuterocanonical books, by Divine inspiration, heightened these expectations and addressed these questions.

The Holy Spirit didn’t drop the ball or “go dark” for 400 years. The seven books written during this Deuterocanonical period were part of the whole great work the Holy Spirit was accomplishing, to prepare for the Messiah, to spread the truths of His Word beyond Eretz Israel, beyond even the Diaspora Jews in the Hellenistic/Roman world, and in fact ultimately to all the Gentile nations.

It’s --- excuse me --- regrettably short-sighted to see the faithful retention of the Deuterocanonical Books as a way to keep a grip on the authority of the Council of Trent, i.e. the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. This shows ignorance of the fact that these books are agreed upon by 2/3 of all Christians --- not just Roman Catholics, but also the Greek Orthodox, Slavonic and Ethiopian Orthodox churches. One must consider not just Catholic Western Europe since the 16th century, but all the historic ancient churches of Europe, Asia (Middle East) and Africa, for well over a millennium.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

BB, read post #55 for the Orthodox perspective. 2,000 years of Christianity is not wrong.