When James White began attempting to talk about his own scriptural presuppositions, and it began looking like someone walking through thick mud up to his neck, he dropped "Jesus' use of the Septuagint." He said it very haltingly. I can only guess why he wasn't really chipper about bringing that up, but my speculation is that he knows it doesn't work, that it doesn't count as a presupposition for a defensible position on preservation. It is just another dust cloud. If you take the argument to its end, which I'm sure he hopes someone does not, it crashes and burns big time.
Old Testament textual critics now correct the traditional text of the Old Testament by using "the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls." I'm sure to some people that sounds really neat. They are saying that the Old Testament needs correcting. They can't even stop with the Old Testament, so what hope is there that they can or will with the New Testament?
I can't write everything about this, because I've got to get to the John Owen point I was making. I'm pretty sure no one has this material out there and I want you to have it. However, before I do, can you for a moment wrap your brain around the idea that these OT textual critics are using a Greek translation from the Hebrew to correct the Hebrew? These are some of the same men who criticize Erasmus for "back translating from the Latin to the Greek in Revelation." That's only bad when it helps their cause. I've never said I was opposed at the preservation of God's Word in languages other than the original languages. I'm happy about Latin speaking people having the Bible in their language. But I digress. I don't want to turn this into a session on Erasmus. Neither do I want to go off on the criticism of eclectic text supporters that it is wrong to take a trajectory from an English translation to its underlying text. They, of course, can only accept that when it travels through a Greek translation into a Hebrew text, eradicating their complaint about trajectories to original language texts from their translations.
If you believe that Jesus quoted from "the Septuagint," you are left with a low view of scripture. You then believe that the Hebrew text of the Old Testament was lost. You also believe that Jesus was very satisfied with a corrupt translation from a corrupt text that differed from the Old Testament text received by God's people. Even the Old Testament textual critic believes his Septuagint is corrupt.
Reader, you may wonder why I put "the Septuagint" in quotes. There is no settled Septuagint. You are not referring to one translation when you say "the Septuagint." There is no "the Septuagint," and most textual critics like White would be happy to have you keep thinking that way. There is little evidence that some established Greek translation of the Old Testament existed before Jesus from which He could quote. The view we should take should be the one that respects the inerrancy of scripture the most. Saying that Jesus quoted the Septuagint doesn't do that.
A position that does respect the Bible and is a historic position based on biblical presuppositions is the one taken by John Owen that I have also read in some more contemporary books on the Septuagint. Hebrews quotes a lot of Old Testament, especially Psalm 110. In Owen's first volume on Hebrews, he spends a few pages speaking on this issue that we're talking about. I'm not going to give you all the pages. I'm going to give you the explanatory quote. Owen writes (pp. 67-68):
Concerning these, and some other places, many confidently affirm, that the apostle waved the original, and reported the words from the translation of the LXX. . . . [T]his boldness in correcting the text, and fancying without proof, testimony, or probability, of other ancient copies of the Scripture of the Old Testament, differing in many things from them which alone remain, and which indeed were ever in the world, may quickly prove pernicious to the church of God. . . . [I]t is highly probable, that the apostle, according to his wonted manner, which appears in almost all the citations used by him in this epistle, reporting the sense and import of the places, in words of his own, the Christian transcribers of the Greek Bible inserted his expressions into the text, either as judging them a more proper version of the original, (whereof they were ignorant) than that of the LXX., or out of a preposterous zeal to take away the appearance of a diversity between the text and the apostle's citation of it. And thus in those testimonies where there is a real variation from the Hebrew original, the apostle took not his words from the translation of the LXX. but his words were afterwards inserted into that translation.
Owen says more, but this is the essence of it from the Hebrews commentary. He's got a whole section on it in his biblical theology too, which was only recently translated from the Latin. This is Owen's position. This was an accepted position. This fits biblical presuppositions. It is also a defensible position. White's position is not defensible. "The Septuagint" sometimes follows the Hebrew Masoretic and sometimes it doesn't. White and others selectively use it. With their usage, they are in very murky waters theologically. Owen's position is an old position. It's what believers have thought. You actually can't prove him wrong. His position has theological underpinning. His position should be believed. I believe it.