Once again, you regurgitate the fraudulent Letter of Aristeas and pretend that the tale it tells is true instead of simply being later jewish propaganda to explain why their holy horseshit first appeared in Greek.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_Aristeas
Be that as it may - the simple fact remains that we have no indication of the OT existing in written form in Hebrew (or Aramaic). One suspects that it was an oral tale written down by Greek authors.
And the late 2d century BC is the time when this would have mattered to anyone for political reasons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_Aristeas
Quote:Philological analysis by Luis Vives, published in XXII libros de Civitate Dei Commentaria (1522), proposed that the pseudepigraphic letter was a forgery, being written by an author living half a century after Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246 B.C) and assuming the name of Aristeas. The inconsistencies and anachronisms of the author, examined and exposed first by Humphrey Hody (1659—1706),[9] place the writing closer to 170-130 BCE. Hody's Oxford dissertation of 1685 provoked an "angry and scurrilous reply" from Isaac Vossius (1618–1689), who had been librarian to Queen Christina of Sweden, in the appendix to his Observations on Pomponius Mela, 1686, to which Hody conclusively replied in notes to his reprint of 1705.[10] Due to this, the author of the letter of Aristeas is most often referred to as pseudo-Aristeas.[11]
Be that as it may - the simple fact remains that we have no indication of the OT existing in written form in Hebrew (or Aramaic). One suspects that it was an oral tale written down by Greek authors.
And the late 2d century BC is the time when this would have mattered to anyone for political reasons.
