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.
that's rather harsh given the circumstances
Matter of opinion. Others didn't survive. I guess Josephus was a survivor.
there's no reason to believe that his surrender to the Romans would affect his testimony about the Jewish canon, a completely unrelated issue
Josephus was following his own agenda. He did and wrote what was good for him. The unfortunate part is that there is almost nothing to go by to corroborate his writings from independent sources.
Even the one piece that exists about Christ is rendered in four versions.
Anyway, the fact that the Hebrew was transmitted correctly and faithfully has actually been confirmed by the DSS.
Apprently not if "There are a handful of places where the LXX may be the more accurate than the Masoretic" as you point out. Who is to say that the text used to translate LXX was not more accurate than the Hebrew/DSS version? If anything DSS revitalized the validity of LXX, not the other way around.
But why would you single out Sha'ul as a "special case"
+Paul preached his own gospel. I will leave it at that.
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!
It seems to me that the Gentiles should have been preached the same Scripture preached by Christ in the Gospels, which is LXX.