433: "...the Jewish background of the post-Pentateuchal books cannot be proven conslusively"
"Support for the assumption of the Jewish background of the post-Pentateuchal translations comes from the following areas:"
- Reliance on the Greek Torah by the later translators.
- Midrashic renderings to a very limited extent (probably embedded in the Hebrew Vorlage).
- The Jewish background of the translation of Isaish, as laid out by I.L. Seeligmann, is reflected in several terms and ideas.
- The Greek version of Proverbs includes Jewish Exegesis.
436: "I suggest that the default assumption for the post-Pentateuchal books should be that they were produced in Palestine, and not in Alexandria or any other part of the Jewish Diaspora (in the latter case, there is no positive evidence in favor of such an assumption)."
440: "...it seems that a better case can be made for a Palestinian than an Egyptian background of most of the post-Pentateuchal books."
442: "The main argument in favor of an Alexadrian canon seems to be the fact that the country had a greater Greek-speaking Jewish community than did Palestine."
445: "Nevertheless, almost by necessity there must have been a main center for these translation efforts; how else could the simultaneous preparation of two different translations of the same book be avoided?"
Who said this never happened?