https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahlfs_1219
Contents: Psalm 1:4-146:9a, 149:2b-151:6; Odes 1:1-6a
Employs the use of numerous nomina sacra (special names/words considered sacred in Christianity - usually the first and last letters of the name/word in question are written, followed by an overline; sometimes other letters from within the word are used as well), consistently using the nomen sacrum for ΘΣ (θεος / God), ΚΣ (κυριος / Lord), ΔΑΔ (Δαυιδ / David), and ΧΣ (χριστος / Messiah/Anointed); with other nomen sacrum used frequently: ΟΡΟΣ (ουρανος / heaven), ΙΗΛ (Ισραηλ / Israel), ΜΗΡ (μητηρ / mother), ΣΗΡ (σωτηρ / saviour), ΠΡΣ (πατρος / father), ΑΝΟΣ (ανθρωπος / man/human), ΠΝΑ (πνευμα / Spirit), ΥΣ (υιος / son), and ΙΗΛΜ (Ιεροσαλημ / Jerusalem).
- Uses diacritical strokes and dots over vowels (though not consistently), varying from a short grave accent to a small dot.
- Uses the apostrophe consistently throughout, with a slightly varied shape. This appears mainly after final consonants, between double consonants, between unlike consonants, and after the Greek εκ.
End of story: I've discovered nothing new.
Conclusion:
1.
While writing the LXX, scribes freely and abundantly used all possible nomina sacra that we know from the NT.
It naturally is impossible that such came into being by merely transcribing from a Vorlage, as no initial Vorlage in the entire universe could ever have looked like that.
Naturally,
once such a text had been created, that in itself could serve as a Vorlage for later MSS. Even though it is unlikely that there was one sole mother copy for all LXX,
it is likely that a very first Vorlage got created for precisely that purpose
2.
It seems highly unlikely, in the light of these findings, that there exists a typical LXX - meaning one that contains the necessary mistranslations that square with their alleged references from the NT -
without even a single nomen sacrum.
If that is the case, or if the exceptions to that rule are insignificant enough from a statistical point of view, it becomes a
very hard case to argue for the existence of an "Old Testament" which is not be a Christian hand - and we're not talking about an e.g. 11th CE MS but about hardcore early ones that have been dated paleographically to around the 5th CE
And again, history repeats itself: there is no extant witness, outside of the echo chamber of Christianity, to texts that support Christian texts
There is no independent LXX to support the NT - all of them come from Christian hands alone