Interesting how someone else has brought up the DSS. :)

I guess my question would be, concerning the texts which do seem to agree with the Septuagint, does anyone know approximately to what date they are assigned? As in, are they pre-Xtianity or post-Xtianity?

Also, if there are 5% which are close to the Septuagint, does anyone know if they affect any of the passages which Xtians rely on in their version of the Tanakh to support Xtian ideas, such as Psalms 40 referring to something like "a body thou has prepared for me"?

I'm just curious because I've seen asserted that there may have been variant texts at the time.. and that Xtians didn't necessarily make up their "proof texts" out of whole cloth.. perhaps there were "pre-Xtian Xtians" so to speak.

Like, for instance, it is claimed that Paul didn't make an error in referring to seeds instead of seed. According to "the Septuagint" (whichever texts that is exactly based on), it indeed says "spermati", a singular seed. Although the interesting thing is, in other parts of the passages, "sperma" is used, and not the "spermatim" (seed plural) that Paul actually refers to when he says "and seeds". I am kind of curious about this. In a sense, I kind of think that Paul was not even quoting a "Septuagint" in the Galatians 3:16 passage. Personally, I am thinking he was quoting the Hebrew, and equated zera with spermati, and that he wasn't aware that there were no "zeras" so to speak, in reference to human beings. After all, if he was really quoting "the Septuagint", why would he have mentioned "spermatim" (plural) "and seeds", when "spermatim" is not the word that is used in the other parts of the Genesis passages in the Septuagint, but rather "sperma" was used.

Sorry for rambling, but I just was thinking about this the other day, and I'm thinking that perhaps "the Septuagint" was "altered" to agree with Paul's argument about "spermati", but not all of it was, so the original "sperma" was left. After all, if Paul was really quoting the Septuagint, it would seem there would have been no "sperma" in those early Genesis passages in reference to the promises to Abraham, but rather the word would have said "spermatim". For instance, Genesis 22:13 in the "Septuagint" has "sperma", not "spermatim", and it is clearly in reference to Ishmael. And Genesis 4:25 in the Septuagint refers to "sperma" in reference to a definite singular seed, Seth. So I see no "spermatim", and I see "spermati" only in reference to the passages which Paul refers to, and basically "sperma" everywhere else. Something seems kind of fishy to me.