That simply isn't true.
Religious beliefs have their own internal logic. Outside facts don’t necessarily intrude.
Actually I think it does. And as for the LXX vs. the 2nd century Hebrew Text that Saint Justin Martyr would have none of, notice the debate between he and Trypho in Chapters 71 and 72.
http://newadvent.org/fathers/01286.htm
There use to be, and there still is among certain segments of King James Only type Protestants that the LXX was not a reliable translation of the Hebrew. The Dead Sea scrolls and its agreement wit the LXX shows that the LXX translation was in fact a straightforward translation of Hebrew into Greek. The article below shows that.
http://www.salvationhistory.com/blog/the_dead_sea_scrolls
Now I am not saying the Masoretic text is not valuable, and I would say it shows that the Hebrew translations from the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls [200BC] to the time of the Masoretic Text [9th to 11th century] were basically stable, but given by the 2nd century, Jews began to translate certain passages differently using a word here and there differently that what was in the LXX reflects a theological perspective that might not be the same that a Church Father would have. Again, see the debate between the 2nd Century Church Father Saint Justin Martyr and Trypho a Jewish Scholar over the LXX translation of Isiah 7:14 vs. the 2nd Century Hebrew standard translation.
Now, I have 3 Catholic translations, the Douah-Rheims, which is a translation of the Latin Vulgate uses “Virgin” [from the LXX] vs. Young Woman from the Hebrew. My Catholic NAB 1987 Edition uses “Virgin” following the LXX whereas my RSV translated in 1966 with ecumenical scholars from Protestants uses “young woman” not Virgin.
I don’t remember the last time Isiah 7:14 was read at Mass but my guess is the Liturgical text would probably use “Virgin”. Last Night at Mass, Luke 1 was read in the Gospel and “Hail Full of Grace” was how the text was rendered following Saint Jerome’s Ava Maria Plena Gratia
roamer_1:
I might in my haste overstated the case. What I meant to say was that the LXX translation was, based on the evidence we have from the Dead Sea Scrolls based on a Hebrew translation. The Masoretic text is consistent with the Dead Sea Scrolls as well. What I should have said, as the article I linked in another thread shows, is that the differences between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Text are due to variant translations found in Hebrew, which shows that there were textual differences in Hebrew Translations.
In summary, both the LXX and Masoretic text are consistent with the Hebrew Translations in the Dead Sea Scrolls. So my point is more that the LXX was in fact a relatively straight forward translation of “Hebrew version of the OT” is supported by the findings at Qumran.