[kosta50]

I found this interesting from Sir Lancelot Brenton's 19th century essay on the History of the Septuagint

UC, this has already been presented on this thread. Brenton bases his otherwise educated essay on the knowledge of the middle of the 19th century. Since then, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (1947) demonstrated that there was more than one "Jewish canon" and that the Septuagint is actually a lot more genuine that it used to be believed in the 1850's, when brenton wrote that piece.

[Uncle Chip]

Since then, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (1947) demonstrated that there was more than one "Jewish canon" and that the Septuagint is actually a lot more genuine that it used to be believed in the 1850's, when brenton wrote that piece.

No, the DSS have reinforced the Masoretic text underlying the KJV. Nothing discovered in the DSS has proven as convincing as the Book of Isaiah written in Hebrew circa 100 BC, buried 70 AD, rediscovered 50 AD, and yet a near perfect match for the Masoretic text from circa 1000 AD.

[fortheDeclaration]

found this interesting from Sir Lancelot Brenton's 19th century essay on the History of the Septuagint UC, this has already been presented on this thread. Brenton bases his otherwise educated essay on the knowledge of the middle of the 19th century. Since then, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (1947) demonstrated that there was more than one "Jewish canon" and that the Septuagint is actually a lot more genuine that it used to be believed in the 1850's, when brenton wrote that piece.

There is nothing that has been discovered that has given the Septuagint any creditability over the Hebrew MS text.