4. Reconstruction of Original [Septuagint] Text:
"The task of reconstructing the Oldest text is still unaccomplished. Materials have accumulated, and much preliminary "spade-work" has been done, by Lagarde in particular (see his "axioms" in Swete, Introduction, 484,) and more recently by Nestle and Rahlfs; but the principles which the editor must follow are not yet finally determined. The extent to which "mixture" has affected the documents is the stumbling-block. Clearly no single Moabite Stone presents the oldest text. That of codex B, as in the New Testament, is on the whole the purest. In the 4 books of "Reigns" (1 Samuel through 2 Kings), e.g., it has escaped the grosser interpolations found in most manuscripts, and Rahlfs (Sept.-Studien, I, 1904) regards its text as pre-Origenic. It is, however, of unequal value and by no means an infallible guide; in Judges, e.g., its text is undoubtedly late, no earlier than the 4th century AD, according to one authority (Moore," Jgs," ICC). In relation to two of the 4th-century recensions its text is neutral, neither predominantly Lucianic nor Hexaplaric; but it has been regarded by some authorities as Hesychian. Possibly the recension made in the country which produced the Septuagint adhered more closely than others to the primitive text; some "Hesychian" features in the B text may prove to be original. Still even its purest portions contain marks of editorial revision and patent corruptions. Codex Alexandrinus presents a quite different type of text, approximating to that of the Massoretic Text. In the books of "Reigns" it is practically a Hexaplaric text without the critical signs, the additional matter being mainly derived from Aquila. Yet that it contains an ancient element is shown by the large support given to its readings by the New Testament and early Christian writers. Individual manuscripts must give place to groups. In order to reconstruct the texts current before Origen's time, it is necessary to isolate the groups containing the three 4th-century recensions, and to eliminate from the recensions thus recovered all Hexaplaric matter and such changes as appear to have been introduced by the authors of those recensions. Other groups brought to light by the larger Cambridge text have also to be taken into account. The attempt to Renetrate into the earlier stages of the history is the hardest task. The Old Latin version is here the surest guide; it has preserved readings which have disappeared from all Greek manuscripts, and affords a criterion as to the relative antiquity of the Greek variants. The evidence of early Christian and Jewish citations is also valuable. Ultimately, after elimination of all readings proved to be "recensional" or late, the decision between outstanding variants must depend on internal evidence. These variants will fall into two classes:
"(1) those merely affecting the Greek text, by far the larger number and presenting less difficulty; (2) those which imply a different Hebrew text. In adjudicating on the latter Lagarde's main axioms have to be borne in mind, that a free translation is to be preferred to a slavishly literal one, and a translation presupposing another Hebrew original to one based on the Massoretic Text."
So if the Codex Alexandrinus Septuagint presents a quite different type of text, approximating to that of the Massoretic Text, then why isn't the Septuagint in Codex Alexandrinus the standard text among Septuagint Onlyists instead of the Septuagint of Codex B??? or is it disregarded in favor of Codex B because it does approximate the Masoretic Text???
According to one authority. Brilliant. Very convincing.
What everyone seems to ignore (as much as possible it seems) is that no matter how you turn it around, the Apostles used what appears to be (whatever version) of the Septuagint that was used at that time among some Jews. Obviously, they had no issues with it being Scripture. Obviously, in only six instances did they prefer clearly the Hebrew (Pharisaical) version of the OT as opposed to that of the LXX.
Clearly, the Apostles built their wiritngs on the Septuagint standard in a majority of cases and rejecting the Hebrew text also in a majority of cases.
So if the Codex Alexandrinus Septuagint presents a quite different type of text, approximating to that of the Massoretic Text, then why isn't the Septuagint in Codex Alexandrinus the standard text among Septuagint Onlyists instead of the Septuagint of Codex B???
Codex Alexandrinus is Byzantine-type text when it comes to Gospels. The rest is Alexandrian-type text (i.e. like the one found in Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus). It is also considered the least reliable version of the three.
Part of the problem is that you have second and early third century recensions of the Septuagint, just as the Hebrew Bible underwent recenssion by using those accent marks the anti-Christian rabbis preferred.
The three major OT translations from hebrew into Greek that masquerade as 'versions' of the LXX are that of Aquila, a convert to Christianity who then converted to Judaism (after being accused of witchraft!). How seriously can one take such a version? The other version was by Symmachus, an Ebonite, and therefore no different than, say Gnostics or for that matter modern-day LDS. Is this something to seriously consider as a valid Christian translation?
The last one was a Hellenized Jews, Theodotion (early 3rd century) whose work is actually quoted in Jerome's work. Because he was himself a Christian, and lived in or near Ephesus, which was pretty much the center of Christianity at that time, his work was available and naturally used and copied by most Christians there.
Was he inspired? I doubt it. Even the publishers of the KJV admit they were not inspired. The first copies of the KJV contained numerous, numerous errors. So did the first three version of Textus Receptus.
Dies this invalidate anything? No, of course not. It only makes it Scripture less than "inerrant" in the literal sense. But that still doesn't change the fact that the Apostles built the NT canon as Scripture on the Septuagint version and not on the Palestinian (Pharisaical) Hebrew version, the six eceptions notwithstanding.