Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Schmuel <schmuel AT escape.com>]

Shalom b-hebrew,

 Lisbeth S. Fried wrote:
> >The first thing I do with my students is to teach >them the difference 
> between the OT and the HB.
> >I tell them the OT is the LXX! >(Not one of them has ever argued with me 
> about it!) :)

Yigal
> Although, Liz, I'm sure you know that this is not strictly correct. The 
> Vulgate, which is the basis for most "Western" traditions, was translated 
> from the Hebrew (albeit with a lot of LXX-based interpretation). And to 
> most Protestants, the OT does not include the Apocrypha.

Schmuel

The issue of the Vulgate Tanach is a tad complex, however it is virtually 
unused in the King James Bible, which was translated with the Masoretic 
Text, Ben Chayyim, as the base underlying manuscript, with minor reference 
to socalled LXX, Vulgate, Peshitta, etc...

(actually I don't even know  if there is any real original Jerome Vulgate 
Tanach, even in lineage,
extant, used in translation.. we would need a Vulgate expert to tell us if 
what is called the Vulgate Tanach can be traced to Jerome, who did 
translate Tanach using Hebrew ... he did that AFTER
his rcc/Pope Damasus days, after he moved to Bethlehem... if not from 
Jerome, it becomes open season as to the Vulgate Tanach sources, I would be 
interested in the theories...)

for the Messianic Testament (NT), we do know that Jerome translated it, we 
have it, and that it came from Greek and Old Latin

Yigal
> And to most Protestants, the OT does not include the Apocrypha.

Schmuel

Very important point, as the socalled LXX principle manuscripts (Vaticanus 
and Sinaticus 350 AD+)
do include various apocrypha.. rejected as non-canonical by Protestants, 
baptists, adventists, etc..

Sinaticus also seems to be a derivative of Origen's 5th column Hexapla, 
based on an internal note..


schmuel AT escape.com

Messianic_Apologetic-subscribe AT yahoogroups.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/