There are those who claim that that Christ and the apostles routinely used the Septuagint as their daily Bible and quoted from it often in the New Testament. The abbreviation used is LXX for this Septuagint version and it is said it was a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into the Greek language for the Greek speaking Jews of Alexandria. However, there are no manuscripts pre-dating the third century A.D. to validate the claim that Jesus or Paul quoted a Greek Old Testament and why would Christ, when preaching to the Jews of Palestine, use a Greek version designed for the Greek speaking Jews of Alexandria Egypt.

The existence of this translation before the time of Christ and the Apostles is based upon a letter called the "Letter of Aristeas".

Aristeas claims to be a high official in the court of the Egyptian King Ptolemy Philadelphius. According to this letter, the royal librarian suggests that it would be good to have a Greek Translation of the Old Testament in the Egyptian royal library. Supposedly the king sent Jews living in Egypt to Jerusalem to ask for help. They asked the high priest to send six scribes from each tribe of Israel to Alexandria in Egypt to make this Greek translation of the Old Testament.

Its then claimed they were sent to the island of Pharos where they each did their own translation of the first five books of the Old Testament. This story has been shown that it is not actually true but still many base their beliefs and doctrine upon the Septuagint or the LXX as it is called because of the 70 scribes who supposedly created it.

Today, the manuscript that is generally called the Septuagint is the Old Testament Greek translation constructed by Origin Adamantius, called Codex B (c.245 A.D.), Codex B is the 5th (fifth) column of Origin’s Hexapla, a six column parallel Bible. The quotes of Jesus or Paul in many of the new versions today may match readings in what is now considered the Septuagint text, however its because new versions are from the exact same Minority Text based on the Alexandrian Codices. The manuscripts of the Septuagint include the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus of the 4th century AD/CE and the Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century. Origen labeled the 5th (fifth) column the LXX. It is known more commonly as the Codex Vaticanus so called because it was found in the Vatican library and is of the Alexandrian text-type so appears to have been brought from Alexandria, but the text differed significantly from the Vulgate and the Textus Receptus. This fact is important as the Westcott-Hort Greek Text was later to become the basis for the English Revised Version and the American Standard Version and has been picked up and many of the new versions being used today.

The Westcott-Hort Greek Text gave great weight to the manuscripts of the Codex Vaticanus (Codex B) found in the Vatican Library and the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus was known to the KJV translators but was not used by them. The Codex Sinaiticus (CodexAleph) was found in a monastery wastebasket in Sinai in 1844 and from the evidence the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus appear to have been copied from the same source in the 4th Century.

Notice Codex Vaticanus is from the 4th century, many centuries after Christ not before and is all in the Greek language, Jesus did not speak Greek, Jesus spoke the language of Aramaic, which is very similar to Hebrew. So lets look further and it becomes quite evident that Jesus and the apostles did not quote from the Septuagint (LXX) or what is now considered the Septuagint from Origen.

Now lets go back to the story used to give the Septuagint legitimacy from Christ himself, that the Septuagint was what He and the apostles used , but its clear the Septuagint wasnt even around when Christ and the Apostles were spreading the Gospel so how could that be, lets look closer on this. The Septuagint was claimed to have been translated between 285-246 BC during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Alexandria, Egypt. His librarian, supposedly Demetrius of Phalerum, persuaded Philadelphus to get a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures and translate into Greek for the Alexandrian Jews. This part of the story comes from early church historian Eusebius (260-339 AD). Scholars then claim that Jesus and His apostles used this Greek Bible instead of the preserved Hebrew text.

Here is a description given online:

"At this time, during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246 BC), the ruler of Ptolemaic Kingdom, sent a request to Eleazar, the chief priest in Jerusalem. He wanted him to send translators, to translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, for his library at Alexandria. The letter known as the Letter of Aristeas describes how Ptolemy II requested translators and Eleazar sent 72 scribes, who translated the Septuagint in 72-days. Hence, the name Septuagint, means Seventy from the Latin septuaginta,“70”, seventy-two translators translating the scriptures in seventy-two days. This account in the letter is not completely accepted by many because of circumstances surrounding the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures....The translation had a profound influence on the Jewish Greek speaking community. Greeks could now read and comment on the Hebrew Scriptures without having to learn Hebrew."

But where did this manuscript really come from, lets look closer look at the 'Letter of Aristeas':

The whole argument that the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek before the time of Christ so he would have used it rests upon a single document. All other historical evidence supporting the argument either quotes or references this single letter, the so-called Letter of Aristeas. In it the writer presents himself as a close confidant of king Philadelphus and claims that he persuaded Eleazar, the high priest in Jerusalem, to send with him 72 scholars from Jerusalem to Alexandria, Egypt where they would translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, forming the Septuagint.

Lets see what is verifiable:

Aristeas, the writer of this letter, claims to have been a Greek court official during the time of Philadelphus' reign and to have been sent by Demetrius to request in Jerusalem the best scholars to bring a copy of the Hebrew scriptures to Alexandria to start the Septuagint translation. In the story, Aristeas even goes so far as to give names of Septuagint scholars, yet many of the names he gives are from the Maccabean era, some 75 years too late and others are Greek names, definitely not the names of Hebrew scholars. It appears that this letter from Aristeas is from a different time period, and writer is trying to make the translation appear older than when it was written, but why.

Looking furhter, the supposed "librarian," Demetrius of Phalerum (345-283 BC) served in the court of Ptolemy Soter. Demetrius was never the librarian under Philadelphus and letter quotes the king telling Demetrius and the translators, when they arrived, how they came on the anniversary of his "naval victory over Antigonus" (Aristeas 7:14). But the only such recorded Egyptian naval victory occurred many years after Demetrius death.

So why would someone go through the trouble to make such a obvious fraud or forgery. It seems one much like the forged Donation of Constantine (Latin, Donatio Constantini) which was a forged Roman imperial decree by which the emperor Constantine I supposedly transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the Roman Bishop or Pope. Well lets look at the claim again, if this the Bible that Jesus and His apostles used instead of the preserved Hebrew text, someone was trying to give this Greek Text legitimacy. But why is this important to them...

This so called Letter of Aristeas is a obvious forgery that doesn't even fit the time period in which it claims to have been written. Even critical textual scholars admit that the letter doesnt add up and yet people persist in quoting the Letter of Aristeas as proof of the existence of the Septuagint before Christ. Many claim that Christ and his apostles used the Septuagint, preferring it above the preserved Hebrew text found in the temple and synagogues. But if the Greek Septuagint was the Bible Jesus used, he would not have said,

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18)

Because the jot is a Hebrew letter, and the tittle is a small mark to distinguish between Hebrew letters. If Jesus used the Greek Septuagint, His scriptures would not have contained the jot and tittle. He obviously used the Hebrew scriptures!

In addition, Jesus only mentioned the Hebrew text as "The Law and the Prophets" and "The Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms":

"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." Luke 24:44

The Hebrews divide their Bible into three parts: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. Jesus clearly referred to this. The Septuagint had no such division as the Hebrew text, so it was not the Septuagint Christ was referring to.
So what is it, and why the fraud or forgery. Well someone was trying to hide something and now we will see what it was..

The supposed text of the Septuagint is found today only in certain manuscripts. The main ones are: Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph); Codex Vaticanus (B); and Codex Alexandrinus (A) or as they are called, the Alexandrian Codices. You can see now the origin, the Alexandrian manuscripts are the very texts that are in the Septuagint. In his Introduction to The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English (1851) Sir Lancelot Brenton describes how some critical scholars have attempted to call the Septuagint by its real name, the Alexandrian Text, it is nothing but the corrupt Gnostic text used to support the Gnosticism heresy, and picked up by those who reject the true manuscripts of the thousand manuscripts of the TEXTUS RECEPTUS or Received Text.

The story of the Septuagint was just a cover to make people believe that it was something older that Christ used, when in reality it is just as later corrupted Gnostic text that has many alterations and changes and not for the better. We have textual critics who try to force these corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts against more than 5,000 copies favoring the Textus Receptus. They use these few codices with their alterations and deletions to translate the new revisions of modern versions of the Bible. But these Alexandrian manuscripts not only put in the Greek line of thought which came to be known as Gnosticism, but also include the Septuagint Old Testament (with the Apocrypha) picking up Gnosticism philosophies and changes and alterations and in addition pagan mysteries and beliefs of the Apocrypha.

Now some textual critics argue the following: If you accept the Alexandrian text (which modern scholars use as the basis for all new translations) for your New Testament, then you also have to accept the rest of the Alexandrian text (Septuagint), which includes the Apocrypha. But do we really need any of the corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts? I would venture to say no.
http://www.scionofzion.com/septuagint1.htm

Origen wrote his Hexapla two hundred years after the life of Christ and the apostles. So in the new versions which are based on the codices Origen used like the NIV, the changes that were done in the New Testament and Old Testament quotes may match Origen text as he used the Alexandrian codices. Origen rewrote both Old and New Testament and changed or deleted the text to suit his ideas and Gnostic leanings. So the new versions take the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus manuscripts, which are in basically, Origen’s Hexapla, and change the traditional Masoretic Old Testament text to match these. The preface of the Septuagint out today points out that the stories surrounding the B.C. creation of the Septuagint (LXX) and the existence of a Greek Old Testament are not true and are based on fables.

So why would anyone try to pass of these 4th century translations or what some call the Septuagint (LXX) based on corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts as what Jesus was using or quoting from. Here is some clues I came across....

"The great Greek scholar, Dr Scrivener, points this out in his historic work A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus. He speaks of correctional alterations made to the MS: 'The Codex is covered with such alterations... brought in by at least ten different revisers, some of them systematically spread over every page, others occasional or limited to separated portions of the MS, many of these being contemporaneous with the first writer, but the greater part belonging to the sixth or seventh century.' " (Ref:B5)
Codex Vaticanus (B)

The second major manuscript of the Minority Textis known as Codex Vaticanus, often referred to as 'B'. This codex was also produced in the 4th century. It was found over a thousand years later in 1481 in the Vatican library in Rome, where it is currently held. It is written on expensive vellum, a fine parchment originally from the skin of calf or antelope. Some authorities claim that it was one of a batch of 50 Bibles ordered from Egypt by the Roman Emperor Constantine; hence its beautiful appearance and the expensive skins which were used for its pages. But alas! this manuscript, like its corrupt Egyptian partner Sinaiticus (Aleph) is also riddled with omissions, insertions and amendments.

Of Codex Vaticanus Samuel Gipp writes on page 72: Quote: "This codex omits many portions of Scripture vital to Christian doctrine. Vaticanus omits Genesis 1.1 through Genesis 46:28; Psalms 106 through 138; Matthew 16:2,3; Romans 16:24; the Pauline Pastoral Epistles; Revelation; and everything in Hebrews after 9:14.

It seems suspicious indeed that a MS possessed by the Roman Catholic church omits the portion of the book of Hebrews which exposes the 'mass' as totally useless (Please read Hebrews 10:10-12)......

It also omits portions of the Scripture telling of the creation (Genesis), the prophetic details of the crucifixion (Psalm 22), and, of course, the portion which prophesies of the destruction of Babylon (Rome), the great whore of Revelation chapter 17. Vaticanus , though intact physically, is found to be in poor literary quality. Dr Martin declares, 'B' exhibits numerous places where the scribe has written the same word or phrase twice in succession. Dr J Smythe states, 'From one end to the other, the whole manuscript has been travelled over by the pen of some… scribe of about the tenth century.' If Vaticanus was considered a trustworthy text originally, the mass of corrections and scribal changes obviously render its testimony highly suspicious and questionable."

Rev. Gipp continues on page 73: Quote: "The corrupt and unreliable nature of these two MSS (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) is best summed up by one who has thoroughly examined them, John W Burgon: 'The impurity of the text exhibited by these codices is not a question of opinion but fact...In the Gospels alone, Codex B(Vatican) leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times. It bears traces of careless transcriptions on every page… If we are to be thorough and discriminatory in our evaluation of the true New Testament text, then we must not -- we cannot -- overlook these facts.' How did these MSS come into being? How did it happen that they should be beautiful to the eye, yet within contain such vile and devastating corruption? It seems that these uncial MSS along with the papyrus MSS included in this category all resulted from a revision of the true, or Universal Text. This revision was enacted in Egypt by Egyptian scribes! " (Ref:B6)

Rev. Gipp continues:
Quote: "So we see that once a pure copy of the Universal Text (Textus Receptus) had been carried down into Egypt, it was recopied. During the process of this recopying, it was revised by men who did not revere it as truly the Word of God. This text was examined by the critical eye of Greek philosophy and Egyptian morals. These men saw nothing wrong with putting the Book in subjection to their opinion instead of their opinion being in subjection to the book. This process produced a text which was local to the educational centre of Alexandria, Egypt. This text went no further than southern Italy where the Roman Catholic Church found its unstable character perfect for overthrowing the true Word of God which was being used universally by the true Christians." (Ref:B7)
The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible has this to say about Codex Vaticanus (B) on page 624 under the article Versions. Quote: " It should be noted, however, that there is no prominent Biblical MS. in which there occur such gross cases of misspelling, faulty grammar, and omission, as in B." (Ref:H2)
Barry Burton comments further: Quote: "For one thing…Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree with each other over 3000 times in the gospels alone…"

http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/vital/kjv/part1-4.html

In his book Revision Revised Dean Burgon wrote, over a hundred years ago, concerning the ages of Codices Vatican (B) and Sinai (Aleph): Quote: "Lastly, - We suspect that these two Manuscripts are indebted for their preservation, solely to their ascertained evil character, which has occasioned that the one eventually found its way, four centuries ago, to a forgotten shelf in the Vatican library; while the other, after exercising the ingenuity of several generations of critical Correctors, eventually (viz. in A.D. 1844) got deposited in the waste-paper basket of the Convent at the foot of mount Sinai. Had B and Aleph been copies of average purity, they must long since have shared the inevitable fate of books which are freely used and highly prized; namely, they would have fallen into decadence and disappeared from sight." (Ref: P1)

So all of the Septuagint manuscripts cited in the concordance of the Septuagint today were written after A.D. 200 and are linked to Origen, and we see the story of the Septuagint LXX before Christ is not true but only created to have people accept the Septuagint text which was nothing but the Alexandrian text written many years after Christ, trying to hide its true origin.