Tim McLay wrote in part:
> E. Tov wrote The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research as
> an introduction to this process. The work of Soisalon-Soininen, Anneli
> Aejmelaeus, Raija Sollamo, Tov, Ulrich, Greenspoon and others is providing
> the basis for using the LXX as a text-critical tool with confidence. Others
> are working with other versions towards the same ends.
> So, my point was that we need to give equal weight to the witness of a
> retroverted variant from a version as we give to MT when that retroverted
> variant rests on a solid reconstruction.
I just finished reviewing Sollamo's "Repetition of the Possessive
Pronoun in the Septuagint" for the online journal TC, and it seems to
me that in the majority of cases in that book she says we can't know
for sure whether the translator took some liberties or had a
different vorlage. I was quite impressed with her tentativeness at
saying "this is what the translator's Hebrew text said;" in most
cases it appears to be pretty much of an open question (I make this
statement only regarding the specific passages in the Pentateuch that
she treated in the book, not as a sweeping generalization).
I realize the beans have to be counted. I just wish the
bean counters would quit counting their beans in my pocket.