The Question of the Greek New Testament

[Randy Carson]

Once again, you regurgitate the fraudulent Letter of Aristeas and pretend that the tale it tells is true instead of simply being later jewish propaganda to explain why their holy horseshit first appeared in Greek.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_Aristeas

Philological analysis by Luis Vives, published in XXII libros de Civitate Dei Commentaria (1522), proposed that the pseudepigraphic letter was a forgery, being written by an author living half a century after Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246 B.C) and assuming the name of Aristeas. The inconsistencies and anachronisms of the author, examined and exposed first by Humphrey Hody (1659—1706),[9] place the writing closer to 170-130 BCE. Hody's Oxford dissertation of 1685 provoked an "angry and scurrilous reply" from Isaac Vossius (1618–1689), who had been librarian to Queen Christina of Sweden, in the appendix to his Observations on Pomponius Mela, 1686, to which Hody conclusively replied in notes to his reprint of 1705.[10] Due to this, the author of the letter of Aristeas is most often referred to as pseudo-Aristeas.[11]

Be that as it may - the simple fact remains that we have no indication of the OT existing in written form in Hebrew (or Aramaic).  One suspects that it was an oral tale written down by Greek authors.

And the late 2d century BC is the time when this would have mattered to anyone for political reasons.

I think you may have missed the point. I was challenged to provide evidence that the Septuagint existed prior to AD 200. The Catholic Encyclopedia states:

Criticism.—(I) The letter of Aristeas is certainly apocryphal. The writer, who calls himself Aristeas and says he is a Greek and a pagan, shows by his whole work that he is a pious, zealous Jew: he recognizes the God of the Jews as the one true God; he declares that God is the author of the Mosaic law; he is an enthusiastic admirer of the Temple of Jerusalem, the Jewish land and people, and its holy laws and learned men.

The account as given in the letter must be regarded as fabulous and legendary, at least in several parts. Some of the details, such as the official intervention of the king and the high priest, the number of the seventy-two translators, the seventy-two questions they had to answer, the seventy-two days they took for their work, are clearly arbitrary assertions; it is difficult, moreover, to admit that the Alexandrian Jews adopted for their public worship a translation of the Law, made at the request of a pagan king; lastly, the very language of the Septuagint Version betrays in places a rather imperfect knowledge both of Hebrew and of the topography of Palestine, and corresponds more closely with the vulgar idiom used at Alexandria. Yet it is not certain that everything contained m the letter is legendary, and scholars ask if there is not a historic foundation underneath the legendary details. Indeed it is likely—as appears from the peculiar character of the language, as well as from what we know of the origin and history of the version—that the Pentateuch was translated at Alexandria. It seems true also that it dates from the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and therefore from the middle of the third century B.C. For if, as is commonly believed, Aristeas's letter was written about 200 B.C., fifty years after the death of Philadelphus, and with a view to increase the authority of the Greek version of the Law, would it have been accepted so easily and spread broadcast, if it had been fictitious, and if the time of the composition did not correspond with the reality? Moreover, it is possible that Ptolemy had something to do with the preparation or publishing of the translation, though how and why cannot be determined now. Was it for the purpose of enriching his library as Pseudo-Aristeas states? This is possible, but it is not proved, while, as will be shown below, we can very well account for the origin of the version independently of the king.

http://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/septuagint-version

The article supports my contention that the Septuagint existed much earlier than was suggested by Aractus.