FrAthanasios wrote:
Your comments about various manuscripts is no different for ANY version since ALL editions today are based upon manuscript fragments. All translations, but not all editions. The standard Hebrew Bible used by scholars is the published version of the manuscript Leningradensis. The new Leiden Peshitta is based on a single manuscript. Every page of the Peshitta project is marked with what manuscripts are consulted, and where variants occur among those manuscripts.
In serious work with the LXX, therefore, I think that one should be upfront about what manuscript(s) one is working from and where. Even Brenton does that to some extent.
I find problematic that that the LXX that is used in the new Orthodox Study Bible is the Rahlfs edition. It is a version of the LXX not based on a single manuscript, but edited 100 years ago from what has become an outdated pool of manuscript resources.
I agree 100% that the MT and the LXX both have to be consulted for any serious Bible work, especially translation. I know that all the Bible translations look at both, though they may have a bias towards the MT in deciding problematic cases, where neither edition seems to be more original.
