Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text distant from the Latin Vulgate

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: schmuel <schmuel AT nyc.rr.com>
  • To: "b-hebrew-lists.ibiblio.org" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Is the Massoretic text distant from the Latin Vulgate
  • Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 06:17:49 -0400

Hi Folks,

James
it is not the major differences which would decide the matter as, if Jerome was as tradition says influenced by a Hebrew Christian who claimed superiority of the hebrew text, he would have been familiar with the major differences and have made a point of translating these.

Steven
So you are defacto agreeing that on hundreds of verses Jerome's Vulgate agrees with the Masoretic Text and not the Greek OT. Essentially that ends the thread discussion and puts your original theory of Vulgate affinity with the Greek OT against the Masoretic Text in the circular file.

James Read
No! Not exactly. That's not really what I said now is it?

Steven
Yes.
The point of the thread was largely a response to your false theory, given earleir.

James Read J.Read
Jerome (4th century) claims to have based his Vulgate translation on the Hebrew text yet there is more agreement with derivative
manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate with the aforementioned dead sea scroll texts, the Greek versions and the Samaritan Pentateuch than with the MT

ORIGINAL POST
** ... more agreement with derivative manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate with the aforementioned dead sea scroll texts, the Greek versions and the Samaritan Pentateuch than with the MT ***

Steven
You may have some new theory, however as far as I am can tell you have abandoned this error and have moved on elsewhere.

James Read
I said that these major differences are not really a good measure for how close the text is to the MT. I based this on the reasoning that if somebody with a limited knowledge of Hebrew wanted to convince folk that he was translating from a superior Hebrew text then he would pay special attention to these well known major differences that were made known to him via the Hebrew Christian who first turned his attention to this text.

Steven
As I pointed out, there is tons of literature about Jerome's Hebrew competence. Just because Exodus 3:14 is a major scripture verse here on this forum does not make the major one then, especially compared to whole sections of scripture that were different. You are welcome to research whether we have any extant Jerome commentary on Exodus 3:14.

James Read
I suggested we look at the minor differences instead to really put this to the test. My example, was not an example which shows closer
affinity to the Greek text. This example is not closer to the Greek text which evidently attempts to put idiomatic sense above grammatical structure and literal word for word translation. It was an example which puts to the test Jerome's claim that he too gave priority to the overall sense of the text.

Steven
I am sure you and virtually any analyst, can find a few dozen possible criticisms of Jerome's translation, however they are irrelevant to the OP.

James
if Jerome really did consider the Hebrew text to be superior

Steven
Since Jerome specifically wrote this in discussion with Augustine,and in other literature, taking a lot of flack in the process in Christian circles, your implication that it was not his actual belief is a bit strained.

James
then hy is he following the Greek tradition of replacing YHWH with Dominus?

Steven
What translation would you consider more accurate ? We have many English Tanach's today, Jewish and Christian and mixed, that follow a similar viewpoint. Clearly, that does not mean these dozens of English versions (including the KJB and the JPS) are following the Greek text instead of the Hebrew Masoretic text.

James
Even in the Greek tradition we find older fragments where the tetragammaton exists. In all the fragments of Vulgate that I am aware of there is not even a hint of a transliteration of the tetragrammaton. I am willing to admit that the transmission of the Vulgate may be corrupt and older version may have included this.

Steven Avery
Again, none of this is relevant to the OP. Feel free to make clear your new theory for discussion. Rolf and others will gladly discuss the discussion of the Tetragram in early fragments. I might even join in, as I have in the past. Not, though, if it is masked as an attempt to show something clearly false -- that Jerome was translating from Greek rather than Hebrew.

James
Again, if we really need to pursue this to its depth I would suggest looking to the minor textual variants as an indication of which text
Jerome made most use of. I don't really have time at the moment. If you don't have time either then remind me in a month or so and we'll
go into this in more depth.

Steven
As I said, you are welcome to take a dozen smaller smaller examples to go along with the dozens of larger examples, all of which will disprove your OP theory. Taking the one most currently doctrinally-charged verse is an extremely poor methodology to determining anything about Jerome.

Consider yourself reminded that you were actually going to study the texts, rather than simply misrepresenting Stefan Rebenich to be wondering whether Jerome actually knew Hebrew. Rebenich is very clear that Jerome was Hebrew-competent, and studied Hebrew with Jewish teachers, the only issue is whether he was fluent and whether he may have given the impression to Augustine and others that overstated his competence. Personally I have not seen a single quote from Jerome on these issues that is not sensible and consisteent.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page