Yes, Maria, I am familiar with the given history of the translation of the Seventy, as a number of saints relate the history in their writings. As I mentioned above, the LXX translation is inspired of God, venerable and useful, and should not in any way be scorned or rejected. I encourage everyone to read it and profit from it.
However, it must be acknowledged that the original autographs of the Septuagint are no longer extant. It is important to note that there was more than one Hebrew textual tradition existing prior to the birth of the Savior, and the Jews corrupted not only copies of the Hebrew, but also deliberately altered copies of the LXX as well.
St. Justin Martyr - Dialogue With Trypho
"But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy [king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation, I do not address myself to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages which are still admitted by you."
So, while it is manifest that the original translation of the Seventy was a work of divine providence and conducted under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, nevertheless, the manuscripts still suffered corruption over time.
St. Jerome - Apology Against the Books of Rufinus
"It is this same man, then, who wrote this fictitious letter of retractation in my name, making out that my translation of the Hebrew books was bad, who, we now hear, accuses me of having translated the Holy Scriptures with a view to disparage the Septuagint. In any case, whether my translation is right or wrong, I am to be condemned: I must either confess that in my new work I was wrong, or else that by my new version I have aimed a blow at the old...Am I likely to have said anything derogatory to the seventy translators, whose work I carefully purged from corruptions and gave to Latin readers many years ago, and daily expound it at our conventual gatherings; whose version of the Psalms has so long been the subject of my meditation and my song? Was I so foolish as to wish to forget in old age what I learned in youth? All my treatises have been woven out of statements warranted by their version. My commentaries on the twelve prophets are an explanation of their version as well as my own."
Maria, it is correct that most of the quotations by our Saviour and His Holy Apostles are found in modern (corrected) versions of the Septuagint, however, not exclusively. There are quotations of the Old Testament that correspond more accurately to the modern extant Hebrew/Syriac copies than the Greek Septuagint.
St. Augustine - The City of God
"And therefore we find that the apostles justly sanction the Septuagint, by quoting it as well as the Hebrew when they adduce proofs from the Scriptures."
"I dread prolixity, so that I must not demonstrate this by many instances in which the seventy interpreters may be thought to differ from the Hebrew, and yet, when well understood, are found to agree. For which reason I also, according to my capacity, following the footsteps of the apostles, who themselves have quoted prophetic testimonies from both, that is, from the Hebrew and the Septuagint, have thought that both should be used as authoritative, since both are one, and divine."
The holy fathers consulted varying translations, including ones produced by Judaizing heretics, such as Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. Nevertheless, the LXX has always been held in very high esteem in the Church.
It's simply not as black and white as some would have it.
St. Bede - The Reckoning of Time
"Lest anyone be shocked that in this work I have preferred to follow the Hebrew Truth’ rather than the version of the Seventy Translators as to the sequence of the unfolding ages, I have introduced it in every instance where there seemed to be a discrepancy, so that the reader, whoever he might be, could see both [versions] at the same time and select whichever he thinks preferable to follow. But it is my firm judgment (which I dare say is not countered by any of the wise) that, just as the most reverend translator of this same Hebrew Truth said to those who cavilled at his work, I neither condemn nor reprove the Seventy, but I prefer the Apostles to all of them, so also shall I proceed with confidence. For I do not reprove the old chronographers who sometimes followed the translation of the Seventy and sometimes disregarded it, as their fancy took them (this will be demonstrated in this little work of ours), but I prefer to all of these the integral purity of the Hebrew Truth, which the foremost men of learning - Jerome in his book On Hebrew Questions, Augustine in his book On the City of God, the chronographer Eusebius himself in the third book of his Ecclesiastical History, where he cites the historian Josephus, writing against Apion the grammarian - agree contains a shorter span of time than is commonly conveyed in the edition of the Seventy. Even those who laud the Seventy to the skies with great and divine praises do not doubt that this [shorter span] should be followed."
