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.
If they did use it they would not have used it in Israel where the Jews spoke Hebrew and the Hebrew Text was authoritative. And the Jews that wanted to make sure that the Apostles were telling the truth about the prophecies of the Messiah would have checked with their most authoritative copy --- the Hebrew Text, not a translation, Greek or otherwise. The Hebrew Text was the official text.
All we know for sure, from those like Josephus and Philo, is that the Septuagint, which was primarily only the five books of the Law, was used by the Hellenistic Jews of Alexandria.
Obviously, in only six instances did they prefer clearly the Hebrew (Pharisaical) version of the OT as opposed to that of the LXX.
But you and every other Septuagintist knows very well that there is no proof that the Septuagint that you have in your hands today to make these claims is the same Septuagint that was in the hands of the Hellenistic Jews of Alexandria at the time of the Apostles, or even in the hands of the Christian Church before the time of Origen. You have no pedigree and the facts of history are against you. Otherwise why would Christians be using Aquila's, or Symmachus', or Theodotian's Greek OTs if there had been a sacred Septuagint text available. And why would Origen need these translations for his fifth column or even a fifth column LXX at all if a Septuagint existed in any viable form???And why spend years and money and 5000 pages of valuable papyrus to create something that already existed???
According to Paul Kahle, the famous OT scholar, who did extensive work on the Septuagint, there was no single Greek version or archetype, just a variety of Greek translations. Only later was an official standardized version of the Law made, but for the rest of the books, there were a variety of translations. As he said, the later formulators of the Greek OT made it conform with the New Testament Text, and thus the Septuagint that you have in your hand quotes from the New Testament, not vice versa.
And what you are ignoring is the fact that there is no proof of any BC Septuagint even existing.
When Origen made his copy of the Septuagint he had a copy of the New Testament in front of him and simply made the Old Testament verse match the New Testament one.
Now stop talking as if you have proof of anything-you don't.