LXX and the NT: The Septuagint and the Biblical Canon

Fifth and final part of the interview with Dr. Larry Perkins on the relationship between the Septuagint and the New Testament. Questions addressed are: 1) What are the implications of the NT authors' use of material outside of today's HB/OT biblical canon on the shape of their collection of authoritative texts? 2) Since NT authors and Church fathers predominantly made use of the Greek Scriptures, should the Septuagint be adopted as the Church's OT text today?

This is the final video of a series in five parts:
5) The Septuagint and the biblical canon

[Greymannn]

I have had an issue with the Mazoretic text when it comes to the Seth-Abraham genealogy found in Genesis. The Mazoretic seems to drop off hundreds of years where the LXX, Josephus, and other ancient textx don't. I wonder why the new translations still hold the genealogy that makes Seth a contemporary with Abraham.

[TyroneBeiron]

For an expert to discuss the 'extended' canon of the LXX as 'problematic' makes one wonder how prejudicial any commentary focussing on the study of the LXX in this channel will be. Why get theological or dogmatic about it when one ought to seek areas of usefulness, which can illuminate rather than serve a point of apologetics for a Protestant canon? After all, modern scholars look to the original MS in all its variances to be better informed. So far, all we have learnt from Qumran and elsewhere has been informative for the better rather worse. You cannot grow the audience for this channel by being immediately dogmatic from a 500 year old point of view and ignore the huge mass of 'catholic orthodox' Christianity that has revered how the LXX has shaped early Christian thought by discounting that as 'problematic'. Almost every Protestant pastor seems to have their own take on this anyway, and that is more 'problematic', no? I think it's best to keep oneself open to what can be learnt.

[taufgesinntechristen]

Both Christ and the Apostles alluded to the Deutorocanon, were obviously familiar with it and said nothing against it. The immediate dsiciples ogf the Apostles (like Clement of Rome, Polycrap and others of the early 2nd century quoted them even authoritatively, which they would not have done had Christ and His Apostles rejected them The question of the canon was in debate among the pharisees even at the beginning of the 2nd century, so even among the Jews it was not as clear in the times of our Christ. Putting this all together, I go for the "Full Old Testament" in the Old Greek Version rather than the later Masoretic Text.