On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 17:34:15 -0600, fred burlingame <[email protected]> wrote: > Really? > > I was unaware that the septuagint was created at one time or even in one > century.
Quite right. But even in the wider sense it does not comprise the NT. > I also understand that general agreement as to the canon of the septuagint > has never arrived. > > And surely, the oldest complete manuscripts of the septuagint include both > old & new testaments as but a single document; witness codices vaticanus, > sinaiticus and alexandrinus. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#Creation_of_the_Septuagint These are not "manuscripts of the septuagint" - they are manuscripts of the Greek Bible (in the Xtian sense, OT+NT) that include the Septuagint, i.e, the OT text is that of the LXX, the NT text is simply the Greek NT. > On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Will Parsons <[email protected]>wrote: > > > On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 15:36:09 -0600, fred burlingame <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > c. the Western Christian community generally accepts the MT version of > > the > > > phrase for their old testament; and the septuagint rendering for their > > new > > > testament; and > > > > Correction on point of fact: there is no such thing as a "Septuagint New > > Testament". The LXX is a translation from Hebrew into Greek; the NT is > > not. -- Will Parsons _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
