John Allegro in The Dead Sea Scrolls documents that when the LXX and MT contradict, the LXX most often agrees with the Dead Sea Scrolls (pp. 59-83). "Qumran agrees 13 times with the LXX against the MT and four times with the MT against the LXX ... it seems now that to scholars engaged in this work in the future Qumran has offered a new basis for confidence in the LXX" (Allegro, pp.74,81). "That the LXX existed before the time of Christ is borne out not only by the fact of agreement with the DSS but in other works as well. A Vander Heeren states, "It is certain that the law, the prophets, and at least part of the other books ... existed in Greek before 135 BC, as appears from the prologue of Ecclesiasticus which does not date later than that year"" (Catholic Encyclopedia). "There are remarkable differences betweem the LXX and MT of 1 and 2 Sam, Jeremiah, Esther, Daniel, Proverbs and Ezekiel 40-48 ... Isaiah and Job" (James A. Sanders, Intertestamental and Biblical Studies at Clairmont, pp. 15-16).

The Jews never recognized the Apocrypha as Scripture. Josephus said, "We (Jews) have not 10,000 books among us, disagreeing with and contradicting one another, but only 22 books which contain the records of all time, and are justly believed to be divine." (We count them as 39, but they are the same 22 books). Nobody "has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them" (Against Apion 1:8). Jews reject any book after the time of Malachi. The Babylonian Talmud says, "After the latter prophets departed: Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, the Holy Spirit departed from Israel." Jesus agreed when he said, "all things must be fulfilled which were written in the LAW of Moses and the PROPHETS and the PSALMS concerning me" (Luke 24:44). This is the same phrase the Jews use to describe the 22 books of the Old Testament: LAW (5 books); PROPHETS (13 books) and PSALMS (4 books). Jesus also said "from Abel ... to Zechariah" (Matt. 23:35) (Genesis to Chronicles -- the last book of the Hebrew Bible) which is just another way of saying "nothing after Malachi." Yet most apocryphal writings were written in the 400 years between Malachi and Matthew. Philo, the Jewish philosopher of Alexandria (20 BC- 50 AD) never cited the Apocrypha even though he wrote prolifically. Even if Jesus quoted from Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) in the Sermon on the Mount, and Paul quoted from the Book of Jasher when he mentioned "Jannes and Jambres" (2 Tim. 3:8) (Jasher 79:27) and Jude quoted from the Book of Enoch when he said "Behold the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints" (Jude 1:14) (Enoch 1:1:9), and quoted from The Assumption of Moses (Jude 1:9), this doesn't imply these books as a whole are inspired.

Furthermore, the Apocrypha shows itself to be uninspired.

1.) Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) says, "Pardon us, if in any parts of what we have labored to interpret, we may seem to fail in some of the phrases."

2.) Tobit is said to have lived 158 years (Tobit 14:11), yet supposedly, he was alive back when Jeroboam revolted against Jerusalem (931 BC) and then still around when when the Assyrians invaded Israel (721 BC) -- a span of some 210 years (1:3-5). Also Tobit 5:15-19 teaches that angels can have families (cp. Mark 12:25). Tobit 6:1-7,16-17 describes magical potions to drive away demons. Tobit 12:9 says, "Alms doth deliver from death and it shall purge away all sin." Lying is allowed (Tobit 5:12; 12:15).

3.) In Judith 1:1 we read that Nebuchadnezzar ruled in Nineveh over Assyria -- rather than in Babylon. Also in Judith 9:2-9, the killing of the men of Shechem is praised rather than condemned (cp. Gen. 49:6-7).

4.) In 2nd Maccabees, Divine authority is virtually disowned (2 Mac.2:23; 15:38). Second Maccabees 1:13-16 says Antiochus Epiphanes was "cut to pieces in the temple of Nanea" and yet 2 Maccabees 9:19-29 says "and being taken with a noisome sickness" he "ended his life among the mountains by a most pitious fate in a strange land." Also in another story, suicide is portrayed as admirable (2 Macc. 14:41-43). "Wherefore he made the propitiation for them that had died, that they might be released from their sins" (2 Macc. 12:45). (Prayer for the dead)

5.) Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20 mentions the preexistence of the soul. Bible doesn't teach this Ps. 139:13-16; Zech. 12:1). Wisdom 11:17 mentions God creating the world out of "formless matter" rather than nothing (Gen. 1:1; Ps. 33:6-9; Heb. 11:3).

6.) Baruch 1:1-2 claims Baruch was in Babylon. Yet the Bible says Baruch was in Egypt (Jer. 43:6-7).

Therefore, when we discuss the Septuagint versus the Masoretic Text, we are not including the Apocrypha as a necessary part of it.

"For the apostles, since they are of more ancient date than all these [heretics], AGREE with this translation [LXX]. And the translation HARMONIZES with the tradition of the apostles. For Peter, John, Matthew, Paul, and the rest successively, as well as their followers, explained all prophecies just as the interpretation of the [seventy] elders contains them." -- Irenaeus AD 180 ANF vol. 1 page 452

"Why then is the 'History' not in their Daniel, if as you say, their wise men hand down by tradition such stories? The answer is that they HID from the knowledge of the people as many of the passages which contained any SCANDAL against the elders, rulers, and judges, as they could, some of which have been preserved in uncanonical writings (Apocrypha). As an example, take the story told about ISAIAH; and guaranteed by the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is found in NONE of their public books. For the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in speaking of the prophets, and what they suffered, says, 'They were stoned, they were SAWN ASUNDER, they were slain with the sword." [Heb. 11:37] To whom, I ask, does the 'SAWN ASUNDER' refer (for by an old idiom, not peculiar to Hebrew, but found also in Greek, this is said in the plural, although it refers to but one person)? ... Now we know very well that tradition says that ISAIAH the prophet was SAWN ASUNDER; and this is found in some apocryphal work, which probably the Jews have PURPOSELY TAMPERED WITH, introducing some phrases manifestly incorrect, that DISCREDIT might be thrown on the whole.... Let us see now if in these cases we are not forced to the conclusion, that while the Savior gives a true account of them, NONE of the Scriptures which could prove what He tells are to be found. For they who build the tombs of the prophets and garnish the sepulchers of the righteous, condemning the crimes their fathers committed against the righteous and the prophets, say, 'If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the BLOOD of the prophets ...' (Matt. 23:30)

"In the BLOOD of what prophets, can anyone tell me? For where do we find anything like this written of Isaiah, or Jeremiah, or any of the twelve [minor prophets], or Daniel? Then about Zechariah the son of Berechiah, who was SLAIN between the Temple and the altar, we learn from Jesus only, not knowing it otherwise from any Scripture. Wherefore I think no other supposition is possible, than that they who had the reputation of wisdom, and the rulers and elders, TOOK AWAY from the people every passage which might bring them into DISCREDIT among the people. We need not wonder, then, if this history of the EVIL DEVICE of the LICENTIOUS elders against Susanna is true, but was CONCEALED and REMOVED from the Scriptures by men themselves not very far removed from the counsel of these elders ... In the Acts of the Apostles also, Stephen, in his other testimony, says, 'Which of the prophets have not your fathers PERSECUTED? And they have SLAIN them which showed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom you have been now the BETRAYERS and MURDERERS.' [Acts 7:52] That Stephen speaks the truth, everyone will admit who receives the Acts of the Apostles; but it is impossible to show from the extant books of the Old Testament how with any justice he throws the blame of having persecuted and slain the prophets on the fathers of those who believe not in Christ ... What I have said is, I think, sufficient to prove that it would be nothing wonderful if this history were true, and the LICENTIOUS and CRUEL ATTACK was actually made on Susanna by those who were at that time elders, and written down by the wisdom of the Spirit, but REMOVED by these rulers of Sodom [Isa. 1:10], as the Spirit would call them." -- Origen AD 235 ANF, vol. 4, page 388-389.

Origen said that it was foolish for Christians to go to the Jews for the Old Testament, especially when Jesus and the apostles used the SEPTUAGINT. Origen said this very sarcastically: "Indeed! When we notice such things [differences], we immediately REJECT as FALSE the copies in use in our Churches, [we] command the brotherhood to PUT AWAY the sacred books currently used among them, [and we] coax and persuade the Jews to give us copies which will [certainly] be UNTAMPERED WITH and free from FORGERY!" -- Origen AD 235. ANF, vol. 4, page 387. Numerous early Christians accused Jewish scribes of maliciously editing their versions .

T.M. Law says, "the writers of the New Testament used ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY the Greek Septuagint" (When God Spoke Greek, p.85). Also, "the consensus is now that when he [Paul] quotes from the Jewish scriptures he MOST OFTEN, perhaps ALWAYS, preferred the Greek" (When God Spoke Greek, p.105).

H.B. Swete says, "it may at once be said that every part of the New Testament affords evidence of a knowledge of the LXX, and that a GREAT MAJORITY of the passages cited from the Old Testament are in general agreement with the Greek version. It is calculated by one writer [Turpie] on the subject that, while the New Testament differs from the Masoretic text in 212 citations, it departs from the LXX in 185; and by another [Grinfield] that "not more than fifty" of the citations "materially differ from the LXX." On either estimate the LXX is the PRINCIPAL SOURCE from which the writers of the New Testament derived their Old Testament quotations." (Swete, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 1914, p.392)

Dr. Driver writes concerning the ages of the patriarchs, "It has been much debated in both cases which of the three texts preserves the original figures. It is generally agreed that the Hebrew does this, the figures in Samaritan and LXX having been arbitrarily increased for the purpose of lengthening the entire period" (Encyc. Brit. vol. 27, p.74).

The Septuagint is considered rather a free translation of the Hebrew: but it is very valuable, and throws much light upon the Old and New Testament. The Pentateuch, perhaps from the simplicity of the original, is the best in the translation. The book of Proverbs is considered the next best.; but many passages differ from the Hebrew text. Job was evidently translated by someone who was well acquainted with the Greek poets; but the meaning of the original is often mistaken. Joshua is supposed to be of later date, because it contains a Gaulish word which could not have been known in Egypt until BC 270, or later. A note at the end of the book of Esther states that it was finished in the fourth year of Ptolemy Philometor or BC 177. The Psalms and Prophets were translated by persons wholly unequal to the task: it is supposed these, with the rest of the books, were completed about BC 170. The arrangement of the Psalms differs from that of the original; and one is added to their number considered apocryphal, or of doubtful inspiration (Certain books called the Apocrypha, were added to the Greek version of the Bible; but were never written in Hebrew. The difference between all these writings, and those given by inspiration of God, is very striking.)