[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

“The Jews” had no universal or definite canon at the time of Christ — and whatever the codified after His ascension is of no moment. Some Jews (Pharisees, Sadducees, can't remember which) only held 5 books to be divinely inspired. What we do know is that millions of Jews held the 7 books to be Scriptural, but more to the point that both Jesus and the Apostles quoted and treated them as such -- which answers your question as to which version of the Septuagent Jesus used.

[Boogieman]

“both Jesus and the Apostles quoted and treated them as such”

They did not quote them or treat them “as such”, because as the article we are all commenting on shows, they quote the Hebrew scriptures in a different manner from how they quoted the apocrypha.

They also quoted other works that were never considered Scripture by anyone before or since as well, but I don’t hear you or anyone else making the argument that those books should become Scripture just because they are quoted in the NT. Yet, if your argument is valid, you should be consistent and argue or those books to be included as well.

[Iscool]

“The Jews” had no universal or definite canon at the time of Christ — and whatever the codified after His ascension is of no moment. Some Jews (Pharisees, Sadducees, can't remember which) only held 5 books to be divinely inspired. What we do know is that millions of Jews held the 7 books to be Scriptural, but more to the point that both Jesus and the Apostles quoted and treated them as such -- which answers your question as to which version of the Septuagent Jesus used.

Oh, Jesus and the Jews had the canon alright...Says so right here...

Luk_24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Why would anyone believe your Church when Jesus provides the truth???