Hi Folks,

While I am not one to use the phrase "mythological LXX" and I appreciate some of bibleprotectors ideas on this .. in some cases I must offer counterpoint.

"The Septuagint in a few papyri? What about the witness of Codex B, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus? "

4th century and later manuscripts, full of blunders, so not very important to the discussion of a B.C. LXX.

"Origen must have been working with some pre-existing text when he was making his corruptions."

I tend to agree. However by that time Aquila, Theodotian, and Symmachus and likely others had done A.D. translations. So the question, still unanswered, is how much of Origen's pre-existing material, outside the Penteteuch, would go back to B.C.

"Whether there is no extant BC dated manuscript does not make the existence of a BC Septuagint a lie."

Agreed. However the Josephus discussion of his possibly translating the histories is an important issue. Why ? That needs to be looked at closely. Similarly there is the issue of what Philo used. From my studies in neither case (Josephus and Philo) did they use a text that correlates significantly with "Codex B, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus". Those texts do correlate some to the NT because they were "smoothed" precisely in that way (Psalm 14 as the smoking cannon).

"For many years the Reformers did not have BC dated Hebrew texts."

True, but the Peshitta (c. 1st-2nd century) and Vulgate (400 AD) both testified strongly to the Masoretic Text against the only significant text with major alternates, the Greek OT. They provided an important ancient witness. Also the Hebrew text was subject to the most exacting copyist disciplines, while the extant Greek OT was simply totally wild and corrupt, even to the point of a full section of Romans being placed in Psalms. Add the element that some Jewish stories emphasized deliberate errors in the Greek.

There really are two separate and related questions.
1) Evidence to a B.C. LXX other than Penteteuch
2) Evidence that our extant texts can be correlated to B.C. Greek, even in the Penteteuch.

"It was only in the 1940s when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered that we had actual physical evidence supporting the pre-Christian existence of the Mesoretic Text."

True.

"Or again, the KJB says there are unicorns, and yet not one live or dead specimen is known to exist."

This would take us afield.
Clearly strong, untamed one-horned animals are known to exist.

www.fundamentalforums.com...php?t=9798

"The most likely candidate is the Indian Rhinocerous, with skin resembling armor plating and one horn on it's nose. Another would be some kind of triceratops, which greatly resembles a rhino. There are ceratopsans with one horn, like monoceratops."

"the taxonomical designation of the one-horned Asian Rhinoceros is "Rhinoceros unicornis"

"It is Reformation tradition that informs us there was a LXX, despite the ancient fabrications. This view is still held to by various reputable King James Bible defenders and supporters."

Yet John Owen warned of scribal mistakes "foisted out of the Septuagint, as many places out of the New have been inserted into that copy of the Old". Exactly the major concern in the "apostles and NT authors quoted from the LXX" argument.

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few. (Acts 17:11, 12)."

This verse will not accomplish your purpose
(the earlier verse Romans 16:26 may be a better try).

Acts 17:1
"Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews"

There is little reason to think that a Jewish synagogue would not have training and knowledge of the Hebrew scriptures. There was possibly even a Targum/meturgeman method of explicating in the synagogues to help those who were weak in the scripture language (this was definitely common where Aramaic was the more common language).

"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region." (Acts 13:48, 49).

"This would indicate that the Septuagint was being used and called "the word"."

Not at all. You should be aware that the KJB word publish is more analogous to our words to herald/preach/proclaim. The tendency to limit "publish" to a connotation of written material is not necessary in modern English and not part of earlier English.

None of these usages imply a copyist or scriptorium. And the context of Acts 13 verse simply does not require initiating a new copyist enterprise of the Tanach (OT).

Mark 1:45
But he went out, and began to publish it much, and to blaze abroad the matter, insomuch that Jesus could no more openly enter into the city, but was without in desert places: and they came to him from every quarter.

Mark 5:20
And he departed, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him: and all men did marvel.

Mark 7:36
And he charged them that they should tell no man: but the more he charged them, so much the more a great deal they published it;

Mark 13:10
And the gospel must first be published among all nations.

Luke 8:39
Return to thine own house, and shew how great things God hath done unto thee. And he went his way, and published throughout the whole city how great things Jesus had done unto him.

Acts 10:37
That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;

Shalom,
Steven