The Septuagint has αμαρτιας,; the TR has παραπτωματα. We aren't going to resolve this.
'Taint no such thing as "the Septuagint". What you are actually referring to is Origen's Hexapla (Catholic).
The so called "Septuagint", really being "septuaginta (plural, with differing translations)" of Origen's Hexapla, Theodotion (6th column), Aquila of Sinope, & Symmachus and really from the sources Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (both of which are not anywhere near 4th C.).
The Septuagint [LXX] as we presently know it, appears first in the writings of Origen [Hexapla] at near the end of the 2nd century AD, and the mention by the so-called "Letter of Aristeas", based on an unfounded and mostly discredited "legend", is seriously problematic.
"... Most of these fables focus on an infamous “book” 14 called the
“Letter of Aristeas” 15 (hereafter called the Letter) and the alleged claims of the Letter’s documentation by authors who wrote before the first coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the first few centuries following His first sojourn on earth. 16
The only extant Letter is dated from the eleventh century. In addition, there is no pre-Christian Greek translation of the He-brew Old Testament text, which the Letter alleges, that has been found, in-cluding the texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls. ..." -
http://www.theoldpathspublications.com/Downloads/Free/The Septuagint ebook.pdf
"... the story of Aristeas appears comparatively rational. Yet it has long been recognized that
much of it is unhistorical,
in particular the professed date and nationality of the writer. Its
claims to authenticity were demolished by Dr. Hody two centuries ago (De bibliorum textibus originalibus, Oxon., 1705) ..." -
http://www.bible-researcher.com/isbelxx01.html
-
https://archive.org/stream/bub_gb_Lq6h8A9RvfwC#page/n15/mode/2up
Other sources, identifying the same
http://www.scionofzion.com/septuagint.htm
https://www.scionofzion.com/septuagint2.htm
"... Roman Catholics use the idea that Christ quoted the Septuagint to justly include the Apocrypha in their Bibles. ... Since no Hebrew Old Testament ever included the books of the Apocrypha, the Septuagint is the only source the Catholics have for justifying their canon. Many Reformers and Lutherans wrote at great length refuting the validity of the Septuagint. ..." -
http://www.wcbible.org/documents/septuagint.pdf
More:
"... [Page 46] Proponents of the invisible LXX will try to claim that Origen didn't translate the Hebrew into Greek, but only copied the LXX into the second column of his Hexapla. Can this argument be correct? No. If it were, then that would mean that those astute 72 Jewish scholars added the Apocryphal books to their work before they were ever written. (!) Or else, Origen took the liberty to add these spurious writings to God's Holy Word (Rev. 22:18). ...
... Is there ANY Greek manuscript of the Old Testament written BEFORE the time of Christ? Yes. There is one minute scrap dated at 150 BC, the Ryland's Papyrus, #458. It contains Deuteronomy chapters 23-28. No more. No less. If fact, it may be the existence of this fragment that led Eucebius and Philo to assume that the entire Pentatuech had been translated by some scribe in an effort to interest Gentiles in the history of the Jews. ... [page 46]
... [Page 47] If there was an Aristeas, he was faced with two insurmountable problems.
First, how did he ever locate the twelve tribes in order to pick his six representative scholars from each. Having been thoroughly scattered by their many defeats and captivities, the tribal lines of the 12 tribes had long since dissolved into virtual non-existence. It was impossible for anyone to distinctly identify the 12 individual tribes.
Secondly, if the 12 tribes had been identified, they would not have undertaken such a translation for two compelling reasons.
(1) Every Jew knew that the official caretaker of Scripture was the tribe of Levi as evidenced in
Deuteronomy 17:18, 31:25,26 and
Malachi 2:7. Thus,
NO Jew of any of the eleven other tribes would dare to join such a forbidden enterprise. ..." -
The Answer Book, By Sam Gipp, Page 46-47, selected portions, emphasis [bold] in original.
See also
The Mythological Septuagint -
https://ia801900.us.archive.org/13/items/peter-s-ruckman-the-mythological-septuagint/Peter S Ruckman - The Mythological Septuagint.pdf
1 Jones,
The Septuagint: A Critical Analysis,
op. cit., pp. 10–54. The reader should, in all fairness, be apprised of the fact that very nearly all references in the literature which allude to the Septuagint in fact pertain to Origen's 5th column. That is, the
real LXX from all citation evidence as to N.T. references – indeed, for all practical purposes – the Septuagint that we actually "see" and "use" is found to actually be only two manuscripts, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus a. This is especially true of Vaticanus. Although this fact is difficult to ferret out from among the vast amount of literature on the subject, it may be verified by numerous sources. Among them, the reader is directed to page 1259 in
The New Bible Dictionary op. cit., (Texts-Versions) where D.W. Gooding admits this when he relates that the LXX of Jer.38:40 (Jer.31:40 in the MT) as shown in figure 214 has been taken from the Codex Sinaiticus. Thomas Hartwell Horne is even more direct in
An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, 9th ed., Vol. II, (London, Eng.: Spottiswoode and Shaw, 1846), fn. 1. p. 282 and fn. 3 p. 288. It has been established that both were produced from Origen's 5th column. Thus, the Septuagint which we actually utilize in practical outworking, the LXX which is cited almost ninety percent of the time, is actually the LXX that was
written more than 250 years
after the completion of the New Testament canon – and by a "Catholicized Jehovah's Witness" at that! Moreover, it must be seen that the testimony of these two corrupted manuscripts is almost solely responsible for the errors being foisted upon the Holy Scriptures in
both Testaments by modern critics! -
Footnote 1, Which Version?, by Floyd Nolen Jones, 20th edition page 129 [PDF] -https://ia601901.us.archive.org/9/items/floyd-nolen-jones-which-version-is-the-bible/Floyd%20Nolen%20Jones%20-%20Which%20Version%20Is%20The%20Bible.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1mi_RcSLQ8
Finally, the so called LXX is OT stuff, not NT stuff. You are saying that "James" is in septuaginta?
