It has always been a mystery to me why protestants are so insistent that the Masorete, the earliest extant manuscript of which dates to the 10th century, and which was transmitted by Christ-denying rabbis who had an anti-Christian interest in selecting which ancient manuscripts were authoritative (traditionally held by Christians to have taken place at a rabbinic council at Jamnia in 90 A.D., but perhaps more diffusely after the destruction of the Temple), and in inserting vowel points to fix the meanings of words (for instance, the same consonants make Nazarene and Nazarite in Hebrew), is to be preferred over the Septuagint, which the Evangelists and Apostles used, and for which we have manuscripts dating back to the second century.
I realize the simple argument is that the now lost ur-text was in Hebrew. But the translation into Greek by faithful Israelites as yet anticipating the Messiah seems to me less likely to have corrupted the text than transmission in the original Hebrew by those with an interest in denying Christ.
The rabbis had a process that selected the best texts, and had them copied, and they had processes that would detect errors, so erroneous texts could be detected.
And so the dead sea scrolls confirm that the rabbis copies were pretty good.
Protestants cling to the Massoretic texts because they hate anything that smacks of “Romanism.” That seems to be then entire Modus Operendi for their religion.