Actually, you have been refuted even before this thread, and my position is that, contrary to your position, Luther was not a maverick in rejecting apocryphal books, as dissent continued right into Trent, regardless of what you believe Vaticanus and Sinaiticus prove, and Trent was the first infallible and indisputable list of the canon.
However are there any LXX manuscripts that confirm the booklist that you use? No. Not a single one
The LXX simply does reflect what Jews held as canonical, being so varied, as Jerome understood, stating, in the 4th century stated (in his prologue to Ezra), “the variety of the texts of which shows them torn and perverted.” -http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_preface_ezra_e.htm; http://www.bombaxo.com/prologues.html
Jerome is far weightier an authority than you, as is the CE which states, “the protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.” “...the Hebrew Bible, which became the Old Testament of Protestantism.” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)
And “manuscripts of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in the first centuries of the Christian era, and since in the second century AD the Jews seem largely to have discarded the Septuagint…there can be no real doubt that the comprehensive codices of the Septuagint, which start appearing in the fourth century AD, are all of Christian origin.” (Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church)
Later Septuagint which contain books which no early manuscripts of the Septuagint are known to have, and Josephus (with his 22 book tripartite canon] and others evidence they did not. The first occurrence of some apocryphal books is first seen in 4th century manuscripts, but not all apocryphal books are contained, nor are the manuscripts all uniform or the same as that of Trent, and contain books she rejects. And while you invoke Vaticanus dated palaeographically to the 4th century, and Sinaiticus found by a Protestant purportedly in a rubbish basket) for support of Trent, neither is identical to Trent's canon.
Codex Vaticanus (B) lacks 1 and 2 Maccabees (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 1 Esdras (non-canonical, according to Rome). The Sinaiticus (Aleph) omits Baruch (canonical, according to Rome), but includes 4 Maccabees (non-canonical, according to Rome)... Thus it turns out that even the three earliest MSS or the LXX show considerable uncertainty as to which books constitute the list of the Apocrypha.. (Archer, Gleason L., Jr., "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction", Moody Press, Chicago, IL, Rev. 1974, p. 75; http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Integ/B-1101.htm)
The Targums did not include these books, nor the earliest versions of the Peshitta, and the apocryphal books are seen to have been later additions, and later versions of the LXX varied in regard to which books of the apocrypha they contained. Nor is there agreement between the codices which of the Apocrypha include. (Eerdmans 1986), 382.
Thus if these support Rome they also can support other canons (but which does not seem to be much of an issue as long as they are Catholic), while earlier testimony indicates an exclusion of the apocrypha.
The earliest Greek manuscripts date to the time of Augustine, whose influence is reflected in the codex manuscripts. In addition, none of the Greek Manuscripts contain all the Apocryphal books. No Greek manuscript has the exact list of Apocryphal books accepted by the Council of Trent (1545-63)
All LXX manuscripts are Christian and not Jewish origin. With a 500 years difference between translation and existing manuscripts. Enough time for Apocryphal books to slip in.
The manuscripts at the Dead Sea evidence no canonical book of the OT was written later than the Persian period. . More .
In summation, even if the issue was evidence for the inclusion of the apocryphal books, versus ongoing dissent the was only resolved over Luther's dead body, for many reasons (though Jamnia is uncertain) the Septuagint is of dubious support for the apocrypha.
“regardless of what you believe Vaticanus and Sinaiticus prove”
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are the oldest complete LXX manuscripts, and both of them have the apocryphal books. Ergo, I conclude the books were considered to be canonical as early as the Third Century.
“Trent was the first infallible and indisputable list of the canon.”
If you read Trent, Trent explicitly says that it is simply a confirmation of what already existed.
“The LXX does reflect what Jews held as canonical”
Which is why the oldest complete manuscripts we possess do have these books included.
“Jerome is far weightier an authority”
And the Church far weightier still.
“All LXX manuscripts are Christian and not Jewish origin.”
Again, we must rely on extant evidence. The extant evidence demostrates that these books were in fact included.
Is there a first century manuscript of the LXX prior to the Gospels? No. And until one is discovered, all your argument is mere conjecture.
“With a 500 years difference between translation and existing manuscripts.”
Are you willing to concede the authority of the Gospels as well? Would you strain out a gnat and admit a camel?
This is the problem. You attack scripture with all the fervor, but fail to notice people looking at the books and asking - “why can’t I simply pick and choose?” Why do I have to accept Romans as authoritative?”
“The manuscripts at the Dead Sea evidence no canonical book”
Contrary to what you would believe - yes, Wisdom of Sirach was found. This is Sirach or Ecclesiasticus. So was Tobit.
Chronicles was not.
Can we thus conclude that Chronicles is acanonical while Tobit and Sirach are?