What happens next?

[tabibito]

You have zero evidence that the Pharisees just used the Hebrew scriptures as you claimed out of the blue, but demand "attested evidence" that they used the LXX too?

Plenty of indirect evidence to show the probability of using the Septuagint - from Rabbinical (Pharisee) focus on teaching from the Hasmonean period and forward in Synagogues; known to have used the LXX, through to the abrupt abandonment of the Septuagint when Christianity began to gain a foothold after the crucifixion of Christ. (the more direct OT references to the messiah mentioned in the LXX seem to have been an embarrassment, but the Pharisees set about producing a redacted Hebrew version of the OT, which now is known as the MT.)

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You have zero evidence that the Pharisees just used the Hebrew scriptures as you claimed out of the blue, but demand "attested evidence" that they used the LXX too?

From the community in Qumran, there is little evidence that Greek was a language being used by that community. Of course it cannot be ruled out that some of them knew Greek and there are fragments of scriptural texts in Greek found in some of the caves. In cave 4 there are eight Greek texts. This may indicate that whomsoever person[s] who brought those texts had used them previously, which would indicate that those person[s] knew Greek. However, there remains the possibility that the texts came from an existing archive, in which case the members of that community would not have required a knowledge of Greek. In comparison to other sites in the Judaean Desert Qumran has a small number of Greek texts; however, most of the other sites in the desert date from a later historical period. Moreover the Qumran texts are mainly religious.

[rogue06]

From the community in Qumran, there is little evidence that Greek was a language being used by that community.

Of course they weren't Pharisee and they did have a few texts in Greek.

[One Bad Pig]

Of course they weren't Pharisee and they did have a few texts in Greek.

Details, details....

They also had a recension of Jeremiah in Hebrew which supports the LXX ordering of the book.

[One Bad Pig]

Plenty of indirect evidence to show the probability of using the Septuagint - from Rabbinical (Pharisee) focus on teaching from the Hasmonean period and forward in Synagogues; known to have used the LXX, through to the abrupt abandonment of the Septuagint when Christianity began to gain a foothold after the crucifixion of Christ. (the more direct OT references to the messiah mentioned in the LXX seem to have been an embarrassment, but the Pharisees set about producing a redacted Hebrew version of the OT, which now is known as the MT.)

The heirs of the Pharisees also forbade the reading of what's known as intertestamental texts (on pain of excommunication) and writing anything down.

[tabibito]

The heirs of the Pharisees also forbade the reading of what's known as intertestamental texts (on pain of excommunication)

Unsurprising, given that the content of some of those texts was fairly explicit regarding the messiah, including the "Son of Man" appellation for the messiah, which elsewhere is applied to an ordinarily human prophet.

and writing anything down.

Surprising.

[NorrinRadd]

Plenty of indirect evidence to show the probability of using the Septuagint - from Rabbinical (Pharisee) focus on teaching from the Hasmonean period and forward in Synagogues; known to have used the LXX, through to the abrupt abandonment of the Septuagint when Christianity began to gain a foothold after the crucifixion of Christ. (the more direct OT references to the messiah mentioned in the LXX seem to have been an embarrassment, but the Pharisees set about producing a redacted Hebrew version of the OT, which now is known as the MT.)

This makes one wonder why modern English translations favor the MT as the basis for the OT Scriptures. Or am I mistaken about that?

[Sparko]

This makes one wonder why modern English translations favor the MT as the basis for the OT Scriptures. Or am I mistaken about that?

Because they are in the original language rather than using a translation?

[tabibito]

This makes one wonder why modern English translations favor the MT as the basis for the OT Scriptures. Or am I mistaken about that?

They do - but aside from the Torah, much of the earlier (verifiable) Tanach seems to be missing - not even the Dead Sea scrolls make a reconstruction possible.

[Cow Poke]

They do - but aside from the Torah, much of the earlier (verifiable) Tanach seems to be missing - not even the Dead Sea scrolls make a reconstruction possible.

yet

[tabibito]

yet

Ah yes - there is always "yet."

[One Bad Pig]

They do - but aside from the Torah, much of the earlier (verifiable) Tanach seems to be missing - not even the Dead Sea scrolls make a reconstruction possible.

I have a copy of the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, and the DSS are quite helpful in making reconstructions. Newer Bible translations tend to make use of them.

[tabibito]

I have a copy of the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, and the DSS are quite helpful in making reconstructions. Newer Bible translations tend to make use of them.

Seems my information about them needs updating.