Who cares, really, since the "oracles of God" (OT) were committed to the Jews (Romans 3:1-2), thus written in Hebrew, not the Greek:
The Septuagint [LXX] as we presently know it, appears first in the writings of Origen [Hexapla] at near the end of the 2nd century
AD, and the mention by the so-called "Letter of Aristeas", based on an unfounded and mostly discredited "legend", is seriously problematic.
"... Most of these fables focus on an infamous “book” 14 called the
“Letter of Aristeas” 15 (hereafter called the Letter) and the alleged claims of the Letter’s documentation by authors who wrote before the first coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the first few centuries following His first sojourn on earth. 16
The only extant Letter is dated from the eleventh century. In addition, there is no pre-Christian Greek translation of the He-brew Old Testament text, which the Letter alleges, that has been found, in-cluding the texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls. ..." -
http://www.theoldpathspublications.com/Downloads/Free/The Septuagint ebook.pdf
"... the story of Aristeas appears comparatively rational. Yet it has long been recognized that
much of it is unhistorical,
in particular the professed date and nationality of the writer. Its
claims to authenticity were demolished by Dr. Hody two centuries ago (De bibliorum textibus originalibus, Oxon., 1705) ..." -
http://www.bible-researcher.com/isbelxx01.html
De bibliorum textibus originalibus -
https://archive.org/stream/bub_gb_Lq6h8A9RvfwC#page/n15/mode/2up
Other sources, identifying the same -
http://www.scionofzion.com/septuagint.htm
"... Roman Catholics use the idea that Christ quoted the Septuagint to justly include the Apocrypha in their Bibles. ... Since no Hebrew Old Testament ever included the books of the Apocrypha, the Septuagint is the only source the Catholics have for justifying their canon. Many Reformers and Lutherans wrote at great length refuting the validity of the Septuagint. ..." -
http://www.wcbible.org/documents/septuagint.pdf
"... [Page 46] Proponents of the invisible LXX will try to claim that Origen didn't translate the Hebrew into Greek, but only copied the LXX into the second column of his Hexapla. Can this argument be correct? No. If it were, then that would mean that those astute 72 Jewish scholars added the Apocryphal books to their work
before they were ever written. (!) Or else, Origen took the liberty to add these spurious writings to God's Holy Word (Rev. 22:18). ...
... Is there ANY Greek manuscript of the Old Testament written BEFORE the time of Christ? Yes. There is one minute scrap dated at 150 BC, the Ryland's Papyrus, #458. It contains Deuteronomy chapters 23-28. No more. No less. If fact, it may be the existence of this fragment that led Eucebius and Philo to
assume that the entire Pentatuech had been translated by some scribe in an effort to interest Gentiles in the history of the Jews. ... [page 46]
... [Page 47] If there
was an Aristeas, he was faced with two insurmountable problems.
First, how did he
ever locate the twelve tribes in order to pick his six representative scholars from each. Having been thoroughly scattered by their many defeats and captivities, the tribal lines of the 12 tribes had long since dissolved into virtual non-existence. It was
impossible for
anyone to distinctly identify the 12 individual tribes.
Secondly, if the 12 tribes
had been identified, they would not have undertaken such a translation for two compelling reasons.
(1) Every Jew knew that the official caretaker of Scripture was the tribe of Levi as evidenced in
Deuteronomy 17:18, 31:25,26 and
Malachi 2:7. Thus,
NO Jew of any of the eleven other tribes would dare to join such a forbidden enterprise. ..." -
The Answer Book, By Sam Gipp, Page 46-47, selected portions, emphasis [bold] in original.
