> now we know that the Dead Sea Scrolls included copies Hebrew manuscripts
> like those the Masoretes used, dating from 100 BC. The scribal differences
> were miniscule. So we don't have to use the "corrupt" translation (LXX);
> we can trust the Hebrew text, which we still usually call the Masoretic.
LXX is indeed a translation, but parts of it go back to 3d
century B.C. & thus _may_ in some case reflect a better tradition of the
Hebrew text than Hebrew mss we have. & while some of its translation
is just poor, in other instances it can serve as a commentary helping
to show how the Hebrew was understood. & of course Qumran doesn't give
us a _complete_ text of the Hebrew Scriptures. So LXX continues to be
of value for understanding the OT text.
George Murphy