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.
"of Hebrew Bible wasn't written until about 500 BC? before = the Hebrew Bible wasn't written until about 500 BC? Before...
My argument doesn't need to explain other books found at Qumran unless you can show that said additional books were considered canon by them. What that says about the LXX is zero. As I noted, you would need to prove what the content of the LXX was when produced by the Jews.
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!.
As to the evidence, my memory is that the oldest dated to the 900s bc up till recently when I believe that was pushed back farther. As a matter of precision, I'd have to chase down my notes on it; but, it really isn't important to the discussion for the moment, so I will neither assent to nor challenge your position for now.
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.
Well, while this appears to be the popular fiction from Catholics, I would again note absence of any evidence to support it. And I would note the same in regard to Jamnia. Jamnia was neither a council, nor a canon setting/modifying conference. To the extent that it did anything, the record of it shows a discussion over Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon. So while the evidence not only doesn't support you, it points an entirely different direction. Finally, Christianity was not a threat to the crumbling Jewish state. It wasn't a "jewish" state by that point but rather a Roman state with Jewish occupants. And for your accusation to hold up, why were Isaiah and the other books referencing messiah not removed. It seems inconsistant to sit and charge them with cutting off their nose to spite their face and yet find the nose still there.
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.
This is again, a matter of smoke and mirrors. Jamnia had nothing whatever to do with canonization. That is the record the Jews and historians give us. In order to argue the LXX means anything, you must establish specifically what the Jews put in their version of it - to the extent that they did at all and what they considered canon. This seems largely the same game that was probably played back then - an attempt to garner credibility for a particular collection of works by getting the Jews to even appear to assent to same. Historically speaking, the absence of assent has wound us up here with your claims and nothing to back them up.
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.
Again, inconclusive. Knowing that there were multiple versions of what calls itself the LXX, establishing that Greek OT texts are cited from an LXX doesn't tell us what constituted the LXX for those citing it to the extent that this is the case. Nor does it mean the LXX was canon. If it's works included accurate works that were canon, then citing them is no foul - that lends nothing to other works that might have been in the LXX. So saying "LXX" is inconclusive - WHICH LXX?!
So, we're back to the starting points - What was included by the Jews in the LXX to the extent that they actually compiled it. What did they include if anything that was considered canon. IE what specific books did they put in vs what they put in as canon. Which books did Christ and the Apostles consider canon? Citing something doesn't mean you consider it canon. It may be useful to a point being made; but, it doesn't make it canon. All of these things are dead obvious. Pouting or throwing fits doesn't present us with factual evidence to prove your case.. especially in light of evidence that deounouces numerous points outright - specifically, Jamnia.