Ben asserts (I hope tongue in cheek) that the LXX did not exist in the first century (CE I presume). There are immense and insurmountable problems with Ben’s hypothesis. First, there’s more than enough textual evidence to support the existence of a collection of Greek texts which were translations of Hebrew texts later called the Septuagint and the Hebrew Bible respectively.

Second, the argument that the NT writers couldn’t have quoted the ‘LXX’ is nonsensical. Of course they could have. Or they could have utilized a textual tradition now lost. Or they could have paraphrased the Greek Old Testament they had. Or they could have made their own translation of Hebrew texts. The supposition implied by Ben that the LXX isn’t exactly quoted by NT authors and so it must not have existed in untenable.

Now if by LXX Ben is talking about ‘Ralf’s’ edition he may have a point- since there is no such beast as ‘Ralf’s’. But if he means to insist that the edition of ‘Rahlfs’ is nothing more than the product of a rich imagination, he will have a very difficult time convincing anyone.

Ben has chosen to plow a field which will yield only briars and thistles and stones. Indeed, he has chosen to plow the seashore.