Their Masoretic text of the Hebrew scriptures was deliberately rendered to filter out most of the Messianic references that foreshadow the coming of Our Lord.
But of course the malice of the Jews and their assaults on Holy Writ were not confined to the Hebrew Scriptures alone, as St. Justin in the 2nd century testifies, and neither did it tarry until the 7th century or thereabouts, when we see the emergence of the Masorete scribes.
The Jews were intent on removing and altering passages from both the LXX and the Hebrew from the very outset, long before the time of the Masoretes, whose texts in our possession date to the 9th or 10th century.
The Jews have a long history of altering sacred Scripture, and it began long prior to the age of Christianity.
Recall that Jehoiakim king of Judah, in his rage, burned the scroll which contained the words of the Lord which Jeremiah had dictated to Baruch, and hence the Lord commanded another be written.
Recall that as a result of the captivity in Babylon, the books of the Law were lost and the Lord restored them by the hand of Ezra the priest.
The notion that most of the Messianic references have been filtered out of the Masoretic texts is simply a gross exaggeration, with little foundation.
Certainly the Masoretic texts are not free from taint in this regard. But neither do we possess any copies of the LXX which are preserved free from alteration of the Jews as well, even if to a much lesser extent.
If one wishes to argue that the LXX manuscripts today in our possession have fewer alterations than the Masoretic texts, and are of an earlier time, and that the LXX is worthy of sanction from the testimonies of the Fathers and the time-honored usage of the Church, and are therefore to be preferred, I will not expend much effort in quibbling with this view.
But there simply does not exist a perfect manuscript according to the Greek or Hebrew, in our day, or even in the days of the most ancient Fathers.
If there was one such perfect manuscript in existence, why did the Churches of God make use of Origen's hexapla? Why did the Fathers resort to many different translations in their expositions of Holy Writ, including the Hebrew?
Why, from practically the earliest of times, was the translation of the book of Daniel by Theodotion (a Jewish heretic) used by the Churches rather than the LXX rendering?
The ancient Fathers frequently make use of the translations rendered by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, who were all three Jewish or Judaizing heretics.
So there is clearly precedent in the Church that translations other than the LXX are not to be automatically dismissed out of hand simply because these translations were rendered at the hands of heretics.
Therefore, we ought not rashly disqualify the use of the Masoretic texts simply because they were wrought by the hand of unbelieving Jews. They are certainly of value.
Cyprian