Replies

That the Qumran texts are often at variance with the Masorete makes it clear that the issue applies to it as well as to the LXX.

What Qumran text are you talking about??? There are manuscripts and fragments found at Qumran validate nearly every book of the Masoretic text. And many of the scholars can't determine for sure if a lot of the stuff there was simply discarded because they were flawed, particularly in Cave 4 which is thought to have been their trash dump.

Orthodox, Latin, Coptic, Ethiopian, Armenian, and possibly Chaldean Christians (though they favor the Peshita, rather than the LXX) will all dispute both parts of that theory. Only the adherents of Christian confessions whose roots reach back at most to the 16th century, who wish to rewrite and abolish parts of Christian tradition as it was received by all of the confessions that can trace their root back to the first four Christian centuries.

Isn't it amazing that people who receive a translation of an original text eventually begin to think and contend that their translation is more genuine than the original. It's kind of like those created after the image of God thinking that they are the self-existent Original.

Those 16th century confessions have their roots in all those congregations in Italy, Gaul, and the British Isles who had and read that old Latin text of the scriptures long before the RCC or the EO was organized.

BTW does the Orthodox still stand behind Byzantine Text of the NT that those "16th century confessions" used in their English Bible, or have they abandoned their tradition of the Byzantine Text in favor of the Alexandrian Text???.