Is the OT translation in "The Apostolic Bible - Polyglot" based strictly on the LXX or MT text? In reference to the answer given to Are there any English Bible translations whose primary text for the OT is the Septuagint? some further issues arise:

There's a rather interesting translation called, "The Apostolic Bible - Polyglot" by Charles Van der Pool, published in 2006 by The Apostolic Press. Does anyone know if it's based strictly on the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint)?

Concerning the other possible sources, mentioned elsewhere on this site, "The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Covenant, by Charles Thomson in 1808" is not currently available for purchase ...

And, the revised translation of it, "The Septuagint Bible," by C.A. Muses is not what it claims to be; that is, its a heavily edited version that bears more resemblance to the KJV than the LXX! Changing the accurate rendering of the Greek scriptures to agree with the Hebrew has corrupted the validity of the translation, and made it useless for the purpose of studying the Septuagint.

As for "The Orthodox Study Bible," it uses the New King James Version text in the places where the translation of the LXX would match that of the Hebrew Masoretic text, so, it's questionable if this is really a strict translation of the LXX?

That's more than one question, sorry, but they are directly related.
Charles Van der Pool does not specify in the introduction whether his translation included Masoretic influences, but from what he does say, it is doubtful. He makes a concerted effort throughout the introduction to express that there is value in the Greek Old Testament that cannot be had with any other translation. I've included his words below from page v of the second edition. Emphasis is the author's, strong text is mine.

With the incorporation of the Greek Old Testament Scriptures into the Greek New Testament via quotes, surely this puts the Greek New Testament in a unique position, as these Greek Old Testament words have become engrafted into the Divine Word of the New Testament. For hundreds of years after the Christ, during the formation of the apostolic age, the Greek Scriptures were consistently read and quoted by the Church Fathers. These all-Greek Scriptures are still in use in Eastern Christendom today, although the Canon is different. The Apostolic Bible continues this tradition of The Apostolic Age Greek Scriptures, and is this named the Apostolic Bible.
With the fact of the Greek Old Testament partly being grafted into the  &quot;inspired&quot; Greek New Testament, it is inconceivable to think one can truly understand the deep meanings of the Greek New Testament without first having knowledge of the Greek Old Testament. For example, consider the following passage in the King James Bible, &quot;he hath made him to be sin for us...&quot; 2 Corinthians 5:31. The word for &quot;sin&quot; is #266 &quot;ἁμαρτία,&quot; where in Numbers 6:14, and many other places in the Greek Old Testament, is translated &quot;sin offering.&quot; &quot;Offering&quot; denoted by the Italics, is implied by the context, as it was talking of animals as a sacrifice for sin. Jesus becoming the &quot;sin offering&quot; opens a whole new aspect of understanding for this verse. That the Greek Scriptures were designed for the Church is a strong argument, but this is not to demean the Hebrew Scriptures of the autographs. Seeing that God saw fit to communicate mainly through the written Word, it ts to one's advantage to diligently search both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures.

He also states on page xiii that &quot;The translation was done by one person, rather than a group of individuals.&quot; This clarifies that this work is his own translation, not another translation printed alongside the Greek OT. He goes on to say that &quot;...a continuity of the English words is attained when one individual is doing the translating of the whole, as compared to a group of individuals in which each may be translating only one book of the Bible.&quot;