That might explain why Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza used some of the old Latin texts for some of the readings of the Epistles because the old Latin had been translated from the original Byzantine Text and they needed it to get those original Byzantine text readings in the Epistles.
BTW Erasmus had atleast five Greek manuscripts dating from the 11th to the 15th century. He used these to make his own Latin version in 1505, and for his later Greek texts. His Greek text came from Greek manuscripts not the Vulgate --- except for the Johannine Comma and perhaps a few others.
You are absolutely right. The Eastern Church used and still uses the Byzantine-type text found in the Gospels of the Codex Alexandrinus, with Alexandrin-type text following in the Epistles.
The older Alexandrian-type texts, Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, are not as 'conflated' ('cleaned up' or 'redacted') as the Byzantine-type Codex Alexandrinus. (I must admit I can see how the naming of these texts and Codices can lead to profound confusion).
My point was that we don't know where the Greek versions came from (I suspect most of them came from Stephanus's Greek NT), but chances are they all belonged to the redacted Majority (Byznatine-type) Text.
The fact remains that Erasmus, despite having used various Greek sources, did not have a complete NT in any one of them, with no traceable identity of any of them.
How unreliable were such sources can be surmised from the fact that someone handed Erasmus a "Greek" text containing Comma Johannenum (retro-translated from Latin to Greek), obviously a forgery, which he accepted as 'genuine.'
This forgery, then, found its way into all the western Bibles, starting with the KJV (which still carries it!). This makes a mockery of the name "word of God" for the Bible.
My other point was that the KJV, then, was most likely translated from either Erasmus's Latin version into English (most likely becauase Latin, not Greek, was the lingua franca of Europe at that time and therefore better known; we know that Luther had to use a Greek dictionary and was most likely not very proficient in Greek, thereby relying on the languge he used daily, Latin, besides German).
Thus, in KJV we have (a) questionable sources to begin with, (b) at least one doucmented forgery, which was never removed (c) doubtful translations and (e) even the known sources belong to the most 'redacted' (altered, doctored) of extant NT sources (the Byzantine-type text). And yet the KJV reigns supreme as the "word" of God!
On top of that, as my example with Isaiah 9 directly quoted from Tanach in 11,062 shows, the "Hebrew Bible" does not agree with either the Septuagint or the KJV and the two Christian sources do not agree with each other!
Also, the KJV quote from Isaiah 9 comes from somewhere other than the Greek text and certainly not from the Hebrew text as claimed by the Jewish sources.
It also must be noted that although, and even though, Erasmus used Greek texts based on the Byzantine-type text, that text, when transferred into Textus Receptus became significantly altered. It is not entirely clear who or what caused that alteration, but Erasmus is the prime suspsect, whether by mistranslation or by faulty copying.
All this points to all the reasons you seem to doubt the LXX to begin with: multiple sources, copies of copies and based on a translation. By your criteria, the entire Christian canon is doubtful. I can't say that I don't share that opinion, but the same applies to Hebrew/Jewish scriptures as well.
Erasmus, having little time to prepare his edition, could only examine manuscripts which came to hand. His haste was so great, in fact, that he did not even write new copies for the printer; rather, he took existing manuscripts, corrected them, and submitted those to the printer. (Erasmus's corrections are still visible in the manuscript 2.)
Nor were the manuscripts which came to hand particularly valuable. For his basic text he chose 2e, 2ap, and 1r. In addition, he was able to consult 1eap, 4ap, and 7p.
Of these, only 1eap had a text independent of the Byzantine tradition -- and Erasmus used it relatively little due to the supposed "corruption" of its text. Erasmus also consulted the Vulgate, but only from a few late manuscripts.
Even those who favour the Byzantine text cannot be overly impressed with Erasmus's choice of manuscripts; they are all rather late (see table):
| Manuscript | Date | Von Soden Classification (in modern terms) |
| 1eap | XII | e: family 1; ap: Ia3 |
| 1r | XII | Andreas |
| 2e | XII/XIII | Kx (Wisse reports Kmix/Kx) |
| 2ap | XII | Ib1 |
| 4ap | XV | |
| 7p | XI/XII | Op18 |
Not only is 1r an Andreas manuscript rather than purely Byzantine, but it is written in such a way that Erasmus could not always tell text from commentary [!] and based his reading on the Vulgate. Also, 1r is defective for the last six verses of the Apocalypse. To fill out the text, Erasmus made his own Greek translation from the Latin [!]. He admitted to what he had done, but the result was a Greek text containing readings not found in any Greek manuscript -- but which were faithfully retained through centuries of editions of the Textus Receptus [figures!]. This included even certain readings which were not even correct Greek [!] (Scrivener offers as an example Rev. 17:4 AKAQARTHTOS).
(link: Textus Receptus)
But, please don't be persuaded. Don't let facts get in the way of 'blind faith.'