roamer_1:
I might in my haste overstated the case. What I meant to say was that the LXX translation was, based on the evidence we have from the Dead Sea Scrolls based on a Hebrew translation. The Masoretic text is consistent with the Dead Sea Scrolls as well. What I should have said, as the article I linked in another thread shows, is that the differences between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Text are due to variant translations found in Hebrew, which shows that there were textual differences in Hebrew Translations.
In summary, both the LXX and Masoretic text are consistent with the Hebrew Translations in the Dead Sea Scrolls. So my point is more that the LXX was in fact a relatively straight forward translation of “Hebrew version of the OT” is supported by the findings at Qumran.
Accepted - I was composing my reply by the time you posted this.
What I meant to say was that the LXX translation was, based on the evidence we have from the Dead Sea Scrolls based on a Hebrew translation.
I believe that to be an overly broad declaration, considering the paucity of evidence within the DSS. That fragmentary Tobit was present, and Sirach, and Baruch 6, and Ps 115, is not an endorsement of Maccabees, as an instance. And further, one MUST remain suspicious of WHY they were included - not only are they under-represented in comparison to Books we both endorse, but they remain grossly antithetical to Hebrew thought: For instance, Tobit is such an affront to Torah that it cannot possibly be Scripture.
The Masoretic text is consistent with the Dead Sea Scrolls as well.
Forgive me FRiend, but that is such an incredible understatement.
What I should have said, as the article I linked in another thread shows, is that the differences between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Text are due to variant translations found in Hebrew, which shows that there were textual differences in Hebrew Translations.
Of course there were, but they are comparatively few, providing that we are consistent in what we call Hebrew. I do not accept the Hellenists as Hebraic scholars.
In summary, both the LXX and Masoretic text are consistent with the Hebrew Translations in the Dead Sea Scrolls. So my point is more that the LXX was in fact a relatively straight forward translation of “Hebrew version of the OT” is supported by the findings at Qumran.
Again, the paucity of LLX within the body of DSS is not worthy of such a statement. I will give you 'indicative', but little more. By and large, DSS supports the Masoretic text.