Biblical Hebrew Forum

["K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Steve:

Look again at the three examples you give; all of them have DSS
support. Therefore LXX is unnecessary in all three examples.

Previous discussions on this subject brought out that many of the
translations of Tanakh found in the New Testament are clearly not from
the LXX and that only one of the writers of the New Testament was
neither a native of Judea / Galilee nor had spent years in Judea
getting educated, yet that one writer was well educated and was first
mentioned in connection with a synagog (Luke). Because a decent Jewish
education called for at least a reading knowledge of Hebrew, we can
conclude that none of the writers of the New Testament depended on LXX
for reading Tanakh.

LXX was irrelevant to the founding of Christianity and the writing of
the New Testament.

Karl W. Randolph.

On 10/13/06, Steve Miller <smille10 AT sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> [Steve Miller] There are at least 3 places, all prophecies of the Messiah,
> where LXX is more accurate than MT:
> 1) Ps 22:16 ... They digged my hands and my feet. (Lxx & DSS)
>
> 2) Isa 7:14 ... and *you* shall call his name Emmanuel. (LXX)
>             ... and *they* shall call his name Emmanuel. (DSS & Matt 1:23)
>
> 3) Isa 53:9 And he put his grave with the wicked; and with a rich man in his
> death; (LXX & DSS)
>
> -Steve Miller
> Detroit
> www.voiceinwilderness.info