All right, Tim. We appear at an impasse. Could you at least grant, before closing, that those among us who are not as versed yet in modern scholarship have an excuse for clinging to older positions regarding the LXX without being a part of a modern conspiracy?
No, I think we should look into it further. Let's all start contacting orthodox scholars and
1: find out what they believe about NT authors quoting from Greek OT versions.
2: find out why or why not.
Clinging to unicorns and dragons existing like many AVers even here on this board isn't an option for me, or many who are following along, so old, non-confessional opinions on subjects like that can In my humble opinion still be called marginal or conspiratorial under a range of conditions.
"Edersheim said Aramaic was a form of Hebrew, and I can prove he said it, therefore it is a legitimate source" just doesn't cut it. People make mistakes, and the knowledge of the Kingdom advances.
-----Added 5/6/2009 at 10:45:06 EST-----
This is a specious burden of proof. (1.) It cannot be proven that they are quotations if there is no verbal equivalence. (2.) It cannot be proven they are quotations from written sources if there is no stable textual tradition, because an oral tradition can be shown to have preceded literary production. (3.) It cannot be proven that the Christian tradition has not altered Greek mss. to conform to NT statements, and all specialists in the field acknowledge that this has at least partially occurred.
All the more reason to start contacting specialists. Let's do it.