I wouldn’t try to issue a biblical translation based on the DSS; their main significance to me for biblical translation is that they establish three things:
1. There were diverse versions of the Hebrew bible.
2. The LXX isn’t a poor translation of the Masoreh, but an excellent translation of another traditional version of the Hebrew bible.
3. Certain books of the LXX “deuterocanon” (”apocrypha”) were actually written in Hebrew, and thus, even the term “deuterocanon” isn’t accurate.
(A fourth interesting discovery is that John’s gospel’s prologue is his interlinear interpretation of an older, non-canonical prophecy.)
Interesting points—
Though I would respond
(1) It would be better to speak of different manuscript traditions of the various Hebrew texts. The texts weren’t circulating in codex form for a very long time, and with the exception of the Samaritan stuff I haven’t seen anything strong enough to call a group of anything a version—which implies a conscious choice.
(2)
(a) to speak of the LXX in conjunction with the Masoretes is an anachronism. The Masoretes codify a version of the Hebrew text, which in their judgment is the best that can be done at the time, long after the septuagintal translations are made;
(b) the LXX is not the product of a single translator, so speaking of the quality of the LXX as a whole is an over-generalization;
(c) given the fragmentary nature of what survives from the non-Masoretic tradition and, in many cases, the lack of critical editions of the LXX which makes it difficult to determine what variations from the MT are due to the original translation and what are due to copyists, it is usually impossible to say more than that when the LXX and the MT part company, some of the time the LXX is supported either by other Hebrew traditions or by alternate pointing of the consonantal text employed by the Masoretes, which indicates that in some of the other cases where the LXX deviates from the consonantal text it likely reflects the ancient Hebrew text from which it was translated;
(d) Rabbi Ishmael stated ca. 110 that “Just as the rock is split into many splinters, so also may one biblical verse contain many teachings”—I think that looking to the LXX as containing one teaching, the MT another, and digging around these and the consonantal text for more is the best approach.
(3)Technical terminology is often not as precise as one would like, and even when it is precise, the prima facie meaning of the words and the best technical usage of the words may deviate. I agree that in theory one might come up with a happier term than deuterocanon, but am grateful enough to at least have this term.
(4) I am intrigued as to your fourth point—what DSS text are you pointing to, and is there a commentary or article to which you might direct me?
(5) The DSS are also important to me in that they give a perspective of how well various textual traditions preserved text. I am of the opinion that, in general, of all ancient texts for which we lack the autograph, the gospel of John is by far the one for which the text is most certain; the synoptics trail John, but a great deal of their uncertainty is linked to cross-contamination, so the uncertainty is a rather minor problem; with regards to the rest of Scripture, the certainty is less and varies from book to book, but as these books are meant to support the gospels, the variation is of secondary concern. Analogously, in the Jewish writings, the Torah is in the best shape, and from a Jewish perspective, by far the most important writing.