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: James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk>
  • To: schmuel <schmuel AT nyc.rr.com>
  • Cc: "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 12:18:53 +0100

Hi Steven,

I take on board all that you are saying. But I urge you to reread my post more carefully before making another such aggressive response. Make sure you actually understand what I am saying before making assumptions about my position and making such a fiery response.

If you had read what I said in my last post you would have seen that my position is not yet set in stone. I merely made the observation that the major well known differences are not a good yard stick to measure by as they were the obvious bits for Jerome to make a point of retranslating.

If we take out the obvious bits and take out the bits where the MT and the Greek texts agree we are left with an apparatus which we can objectively put this to the test. Whereas I am, as yet, undecided you obviously seem to already have a firm stance in this question.

I can tell you that, while I would very much like to, for at least the next month I don't have the time to make such a study. If you would like to make the first move and make a comprehensive list of the minor differences of a chosen text (let's say the Torah) then maybe we could get the discussion moving quicker.

If not, I'll have to forget about this for a month because I really am snowed under (got a dissertation to write). But please do remind me in a month's time and we'll get to the bottom of this together.

James Christian

P.S. If you are to reply any further please be a little more gentle. My position is not as set in stone as you seem to think.

Quoting schmuel <schmuel AT nyc.rr.com>:

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

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew





--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page