Josephus is pretty much the only source available to peek into that era. The bad part of it is that he was a spineless character who, like Eusebius (the first Church historian), was prone to to things that make both of them highly unreliable. I would never take what Josephus (or Eusebius) says as normative.
The same problem occurs when trying to cite collections of the LXX from the fourth or fifth century as establishing the normative canon of the Tanakh from the first
But the same could be said of the oldest Hebrew Bible which is a 10th century (AD!) copy of the originals. The problem with LXX is that it demonstrates clearer than other sources the corruption of Scriptural content (and, by the same token, the uncertainty as to which copy is "truer"), because evidence of tampering and personal additions and deletions of various authors is more evident and traceable.
But, indirect evidence suggests that the older versions of the LXX may be closer to the original (based on such comments as made in the 4th century by +Augustine in his Retractions, etc.). The unfortunate part is that the Eastern Orthodox Church uses the 5th c. Alexandrian Codex as normative, which seems to be the least reliable of the oldest three known.
It wasn't always good enough for the Apostles. If they saw fit to go back and render a fresh translation from the original Hebrew text in many cases rather than simply citing the LXX consistently, then we should follow their example and do the same
Just out of curiosity, which Apostles quote from the Hebrew text? +Paul is a special case, and it does not surprise that he would quote from the Hebrew text. First, he was a Pharisee, and he claims he studied Scripture in Jerusalem under a prominent Jewish biblical authority.
But I would be curious, if you have such information, as to which other writers of the NT use the Hebrew Text in addition to LXX.
Not true, and I've already listed several other sources, including the NT.
As for Josephus' spinelessness, a) that's rather harsh given the circumstances, and b) while that most likely affected his "spin" on Roman/Jewish relations, there's no reason to believe that his surrender to the Romans would affect his testimony about the Jewish canon, a completely unrelated issue.
But the same could be said of the oldest Hebrew Bible which is a 10th century (AD!) copy of the originals.
Which I've not referenced in regard to determining the canon, so what's your point? Anyway, the fact that the Hebrew was transmitted correctly and faithfully has actually been confirmed by the DSS.
But, indirect evidence suggests that the older versions of the LXX may be closer to the original (based on such comments as made in the 4th century by +Augustine in his Retractions, etc.).
Again, you're not using the latest data on the state of the Tanakh in the first century, which is built on the DSS. There are a handful of places where the LXX may be the more accurate than the Masoretic (i.e., Psalm 22:16, "piercers of My hands and My feet" as opposed to "like a lion are My hands and My feet"--a difference, in the Hebrew, of exactly one letter), but these a) are corrected in the DSS, and b) are few and far between, and there are numerous other places where it is known to be less accurate--including those instances in the NT where the Apostles eschewed using it even though it was the most common source of Greek Scriptures in their day.
Just out of curiosity, which Apostles quote from the Hebrew text?
If I recall correctly, this feature crops up fairly often. I'll have to dig for the quotes in a bit; I'm about to head out now. Let me get back to you either tonight or later this weekend.
But why would you single out Sha'ul as a "special case"? It seems to me that we should take special note that the Apostle to the Gentiles didn't use the LXX nearly half the time!
God bless.