Which version of the LXX? This is the difficulty I have addressed with my friend here in debate. There is no *single* LXX collection. And to the extent that some versions of it are known, we can't say we know what it started off as, given that people obviously took liberties with what they included in copying it - else there would not be multiple versions. It is arguable that to the extent the Hebrews had a problem with the LXX, it was that once written in the greek, the greeks were able to then add to it what they willed under the presumptiveness of claiming the additions as canon. A possibility based on the facts; but, not a fact in and of itself. I offer it, though, because of the problem of multiple versions.
This is not how the Jews have behaved prior or since. They are the very definition of 'anal' when it comes to precision of their texts. A humorous if irreverant observation; but, it makes the point. We're to believe on literally no evidence, that after thousands of years of reverent precision, these people just dropped precision for five seconds and then picked it up again.. something that is their history, their life and their knowledge from their God. This may be understandable were we talking about the less than careful manner in which Rome and other groups have handled God's word; but, it has never been so with the Hebrews. The precision with which they have handled their scriptures for thousands of years prior to Christ and since can't be matched with the help of modern equipment today in most cases. Yet we're to believe they threw caution to the wind and started proliferating editions and forgot what their texts were only to make a Hebrew version in protest of it's mishandling by others later.. no. It doesn't pass the sniff test. I agree that they may have issued a Hebrew version again in order to protest what was being done to a Greek version, that is entirely possible. But it's utter nonsense to say that they all of a sudden excluded something from their canon to spite Christians. If that were so, they would have had to eliminate most of their books, Isaiah in particular - or at least modify them. God forbid. That is not the way they have ever behaved, therefore, I would require of someone evidence of such. Gut instinct is that to the extent the Jews ever authored a version of the Septuigent, it would only have included canon works that we see in the Hebrew version of the text. Given there is no evidence they changed what constituted canon, saying the LXX had other books is not sufficient to establish that the Jews were responsible for that. Did the LXX play some role back then, perhaps. But are we speaking of the same LXX the Jews actually authored, that is entirely another matter.
Bottom line for me is that the Jews have claim on their canon. In absence of proof of inconsistency, it is not enough to claim inconsistency existed because of them. One must prove both the inconsistency and that they are responsible. Absent that, we are left with their record of things and know what their canon was at the time as much by what is recorded as by what is not. To the extent that the LXX has bearing now or then, one must prove what version, extant or no, of the LXX was used then by the Jews whom we presume to say authored it. To the extent that they added more to the LXX than was in the Hebrew works, one would have to prove further that it was considered canon. That is not established. The question is not as simple as one might presume. And claims alone are not enough to base anything on. There were vested interests at the time and have been ever since trying to introduce things that had no business in the texts.
My final point here is the final word on the matter not because I say so; but, because scripture says so. Paul told us flatly that the oracles of God were and are entrusted to the Israelites. Period. To the extent that ANYONE has any authority to say what constituted Old covenant canon, it is and was them the israelites. They have spoken on the matter. And that does, as a matter of their own authority granted by God, settle it. Whatever else one may presume to say may be contestable, that point is scripturally incontestable.
As for the masorets being perfectionists when it came to copying, that much is true, except that they don't date back "thousands of years" but conveniently appear in the first century AD!.
Since the text from the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) differs from the 9th century AD Masoretic Text (the oldest complete Hebrew Bible), your argument falls flat on its face. Shall we not also mention that the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds differ as well? Or that out of 5,765 years of Hebrew Bible wasn't written until about 500 BC? before that, it was all oral tradition. You expect people to believe that the people, who repeatedly betrayed God, kept His word by word of mouth for thousands of years impeccably and without error?! Get real! Just the very existance of DSS provies that this is not so.
Christianity was a threat to the crumbling Jewish state, and with the destruction of the Temple the only thing that could keep Jews from following the new religion was to eliminate those passages that were threatening. There was desperation and a question of survival of a culture and a people being destroyed from within and without -- it is no wonder that masoretes appear just at that time! No small wonder, indeed! Just as it is no wonder that the rabbies got together at Jamnia. as I said before, there was not just a motive, but a strong motive.
As to the canon, it is evident from people like Josephus (100 AD) that not all Jews considered the same books canon. His list lacks Ecclesiastes (Song of Songs). Besides, Jamnia did not apply to all the Jews. The Jews of Ethiopia use a different canon. Christian OT source agrees with theirs. Whether they were not included at Jamnia or simply did not hear about Jamnia is irreleveant -- the fact is we have Jews to this day who use different canon that agrees with LXX.
The fact that Essenes used additional books and that their text agrees also with LXX suggests that the canon was not closed and provies not all Jews used the same canon. All this changed after Jamnia. Of course, the Jews at Jamnia didn't call it a "council" (what else can one call a gathering of prominent rabbis?), and maybe they didn't explicitly say the canon was closed, but the canon hasn't changed since then.
The NT refers to the wording of LXX. Whether apocrypha are Scripture (even +Jerome calls "Wisdom" by that name, and "Sirach" as holy Scripture), or whether they are merely profitable for reading does not change the fact that the Apostles used LXX as their Scripture.
"Paul told us flatly that the oracles of God were and are entrusted to the Israelites. Period. To the extent that ANYONE has any authority to say what constituted Old covenant canon, it is and was them the israelites. They have spoken on the matter. And that does, as a matter of their own authority granted by God, settle it."
First: "oracle" does not equal "Scripture". It also includes the casting of lots by Urim and Thummim.
Second: are you saying that if Jesus Christ cited to the Septuagint, that he was wrong because the Jews (later) spoke on the matter? The high priest and Sandhedrin also sentenced him to death for blasphemy. Were they right? They executed Stephen for blasphemy. Were they right?
They executed James, son of Jesus. Were they right?
Does their judgment as a matter of their "authority granted by God, settle it"?
They also systematically opposed the Christians at every step. The men who sat at Jamnia were polemically opposed to Christianity. Were they right?
Or did the religious authority of the Jews end, and the religion cease to have force, when the curtain of the Holy of Holies was rent in twain with the death of Jesus.
Also, Houston, we have a real problem here.
You have not identified your religious affiliation.
But you HAVE asserted that you are not a Sola Scripturalist.
If you're not using the Bible alone, you are relying on some tradition in addition to the Bible. Which one?