From: Jack Kilmon (jkilmon@historian.net)
Date: Sat Jun 20 1998 - 09:32:52 EDT
Kevin Messerschmidt wrote:
> Does anyone here doubt the authenticity of the LXX, i.e. is it generally
> accepted to be pre-NT, or is it as some claim 3rd century post-NT or
> beyond?
The NT began its development from autographs and sources beginningin the 40's CE and
throughout the first century with editing and redactions
that continued into the third century. The NT works were compositional
Greek that imbed some translational Greek from Aramaic and/or Hebrew
source material.
The LXX began its development in the 3rd century BCE as a Greek
translation of the Hebrew OT. It is, therefore, "pre-NT."
The LXX is *Old Testament* but was the OT most preferred by
Christians after the 1st century since most Christians were gentiles
and spoke Greek. When the NT writings were collected and
collated at about the same time when the codex became popular
among Christians, they were appended to the LXX of the OT
and the "Old" and "New" Testament labels came into use. The
4th century Codex Alexandrinus is an example.
The answer to your question, therefore, is the LXX is an
'authentic" translation of the Hebrew scriptures that predates
the NT.
--- b-greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek To post a message to the list, mailto:b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, mailto:subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu To unsubscribe, mailto:unsubscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu?subject=[cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:49 EDT