"The only copy of LXX that is positively corroborated with Dead Sea Scrolls (and disagree with Hebrew Masoretic Text) is the oldest version of LXX."
There is no way to prove what the oldest version of the LXX is, and I doubt that the comparisons done with the Dead Sea Scrolls were done only with one manuscript of the LXX. I furthermore find it interesting that anyone would seriously posit the idea that the Dead Sea Scrolls are the standard by which to judge the LXX. If so, then the LXX is seriously flawed, since there are many readings in the DSS that disagree with both the LXX and the Massoretic text. In any event I'd be interested in seeing your source for your information on which LXX manuscripts have been compared with the DSS.
"Whether such version exists on the Internet or not is a question, and I assume that you have a translation at home."
The comments in my post were made based not on any translation of the LXX, but rather on the Greek text and apparatus of Rahlf's critical edition of the LXX, which compiles and details the various known LXX manuscripts.
"If what you say is true, this is the first time that I hear that Brenton's is a "misleading" copy. Does this Orthodox Church make any statements to that effect?"
What I say is true. Brenton's is widely used in the English-speaking Orthodox world because it is the most readily available. I use it myself all the time, even though I never forget that there are probably many points at which it doesn't follow the Byzantine textual tradition.
As you know, the Orthodox Church is not given to making proclamations about Holy Scriptures. Our textual tradition of the Scriptures is first and foremost a liturgical one. Since only a few books of the Old Testament are used liturgically, the emphasis on the text of the OT is not nearly as strong as it is in the NT. Also, the state of Orthodox scholarship vis a vis the issues of modern textual criticism is not very advanced. That is not necessarily a bad thing, unless one has a predilection for being taken in by modern skeptical views of Scripture.
"Regardless, my point was from the beginning that various copies contain various statements, even different pararaphs, different lengths of the same books, and that the Bible is doctored and redacted, (mis)translated and altered and that there are no originals available to corroborate what is what."
A concern for the "originals" has never been particularly embraced by the Orthodox Church. The idea of the "original autograph" is a 19th c Protestant one. Orthodox copyists have certainly made efforts to identify poor copies of any piece of writing and to avoid copying them -- look at St. Paisius Velichkovsky's work with cleaning up the texts of the Philokalia. Part of why the major uncial codices are in such good condition in spite of their age is clearly because they weren't used or copied. Our Scriptures are the Scriptures we have passed down within our Church, not the Scriptures that someone's theories claim used to exist.
"Obviously, not one of these copies can make a claim that it is the one true copy and that everything in it is true, just as God wanted it."
No, and the Orthodox Church has never made such a claim. That is why you don't see me promoting the idea of absolute Biblical inerrancy, for all of my respect for our Calvinist friends on this thread. But, on the other hand, the general body of manuscripts handed down in the Orthodox Church, the "text-type," can and is certainly considered by Orthodox Christians to be authoritative and reliable, even though our use of these authoritative and reliable texts is based in the Orthodox spiritual tradition.
"The devil is in the details, Agrarian."
I know. That's why I took the time to write that fairly detailed post.
"Perhaps such little details as Michal's children (why would Melchol be something you need to mention -- Isaiah is not Isaiah in Hebrew) or lack thereof shows the all bibles are not the same, and do not convey the same information."
My mentioning the Greek spelling of Melchol vs Michol was merely to point out that in the reading of Codex Vaticanus that Brenton uses, the spelling of her name differs in this one verse that was being disputed -- to me this makes it suspicious that it is Codex Vaticanus that is the corrupt version, although I can't prove this.
"If one is going to believe everything in the Bible as God's truth than one must assume that the other copies do not meet that criteria because they say different things."
This is nonsense. It is perfectly possible for two divergent manuscripts of the Bible to have equally powerful spiritual effects. If one were to believe that, then one would have to believe that Christianity was without the full effect of the Scriptures prior to the printing press, when manuscripts all differed very slightly from each other, even within a textual tradition. You seem to be saying, in essence, that if the Scriptures are not 100% consistent from manuscript to manuscript, that we are obligated to take a stance of disbelief toward their historical accuracy. To me, that is a false choice, and a choice with no basis whatsoever in the exegetical traditions of the Fathers.
"LXX is the oldest copy of complete Five Books of Moses, Catholics accept it only partially, and Protestants have rejected in outright. So have the Jews. Yet, you are using LXX to show that Protestant's claims, based on Hebrew MT, prove LXX is right, and Jerome, who used partially the MT is wrong. Strange indeed."
I'm really not sure what your point is here. I agreed with you and jo kus that the MT (and thus the KJV and Vulgate) is self-contradictory on this question. It just so happened that the instincts of our Calvinist friends to find harmony in the Scripture rather than contradiction found them agreeing with the Byzantine LXX reading.
My own point, if I had one at all, was simply to correct your statement that the LXX was just as contradictory on this small and trivial point as are those versions based on the Hebrew. Since the reliability of Scripture was apparently depending on this critical point, I thought I should convey to the thread just what the Byzantine LXX tradition had to say about it.
All I did was to do what I always do. I worked from the assumption that the Bible is generally historically accurate and that the Byzantine textual tradition of OT and NT alike is the best one for an Orthodox Christian to examine. The rest was pretty easy. It takes a lot more energy to try to pick holes in the Scriptures than it does to accept them.
A broader point that I wanted to make was that skeptical attitudes toward the Scriptures, which superficially seem to be terribly advanced and intelligent (at least in modern unbelieving America), are just as likely to be based in ignorance as are fundamentalist approaches to Scripture. Which is why the simple peasant beliefs that have dominated the Orthodox Church for centuries haven't had such bad results.
"A broader point that I wanted to make was that skeptical attitudes toward the Scriptures, which superficially seem to be terribly advanced and intelligent (at least in modern unbelieving America), are just as likely to be based in ignorance as are fundamentalist approaches to Scripture. Which is why the simple peasant beliefs that have dominated the Orthodox Church for centuries haven't had such bad results."
Something I have always tried to remember is that my great-grandmother probably couldn't read, at least not much and I am sure she never heard of biblical exegesis, but her best friend was the Most Holy Theotokos...and the influence of her Orthodox faith shows itself daily in the lives of her her great great grandsons.
I don't use any particular source; I use all of them. It was the discovery of the dead Sea Scrolls that "verified" many of the LXX deviations from the MT. I don't have the source handy, but it's the same one that carries Rahlf's.
Here are some facts about the Septuagint (LXX) that I have compiled:
a) the original does not exist
b) The oldest fragments (2nd c. BC) include Leviticus, deuteronomy and Minor Prophets
c) It is unknown how LXX came into existence; there is a legend about it being commissioned and that it was done in ecrod time; evidence shows it was more like two centuries.
d) there are numerous redactions, variations and copies, not all in concord with each other.
e) Oldest known copy of the OT (LXX) is Codex Sinaticus (4th c. AD)
f) the Orthodox Church does not differentiate between different versions g) Some sections are literal Greek (Ecclesiastes); others are periphrasic (Proverbs)
h) LXX Jeremiah is shorter by 1/8 than the MT; Job 1/6; Esther has 50% fewer verses the MT version
i) Exodus differs in many instances
j) Gen 4:7 is very different as compared to the MT
k) Syriac OT, based on Hebrew reatins the Michal/Michol/Melchol in Kings 2
l) There are over 2,000 typographical errors in various LXX copies
j) LXX agrees with DSS where the LXX differs from MT
k) LXX is quoted some 100 times in the New Testament; MT only six.