[redgolum]

One of the rather interesting things about the Qumran (sp?) scrolls, or the Dead Sea Scrolls, is that they follow the LXX version of Isaiah and Jeremiah more than the Masoretic text. Which, according to the scholarship of the day, they shouldn't.

Caused quite a bit of internal controversy, and was one of the reasons it took so long to publish the scrolls. The other reason is that many at the IAA thought that they should be labeled forgeries since the scrolls were not found at an authorized dig.

[dangus]

>> One of the rather interesting things about the Qumran (sp?) scrolls, or the Dead Sea Scrolls, is that they follow the LXX version of Isaiah and Jeremiah more than the Masoretic text. Which, according to the scholarship of the day, they shouldn't. <<

Yes. This article does seem to slightly overstate or oversimplify the case to assert that the Masoretic Text is a back-translation of the Septuagint; From the Qumran and other sources, it seems to be a later translation from something which was much more recent.

The other interesting thing about the Qumran is that it contains many of the deuterocanonicals, which, at the time of Jerome, were not known to exist in Hebrew. In fact, it contains all the books of the bible, except one of the deuterocanonicals (I forget which), Esther, and Daniel 13. Yes, Daniel includes the dueterocanonical portions... This suggests that the term "deuterocanonical" is too large of a concession.