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 22:03:43 -0400

Hi Folks,

James,
> 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.

Not really. I have on occasion looked at sections and numbers and seen that we have what was
referred to in the book .. the Vulgate is, for practical purposes, the Masoretic Text. And the ideas
that Jerome did not know Hebrew or that he was actually translating a disguised Greek range from
humorous to ludicrous. (Granting that you have only floated those ideas, not stone-etched them.)

However, since that has been your basic concern, and since you want to now leave out the most salient
evidence (sections, books, verses missing or very different) I suggested to you a methodology that
would like at lesser evidences. Take a dozen or two MT-Greek differences, semi-random, and then
look at the Vulgate and see where it stands. For me, however, it would not be a productive use of time.
You might find 80% Vulgate-MT over "the Greek", maybe 98%, it might vary based on some factors, but
you will find the Vulgate and MT in affinity. If you find out otherwise, please share, and I will listen
carefully.

My 'aggressive' goal before was to keep the discussion on track. There are lots of theories that try
to minimize the Masoretic Text. However the Peshitta, probably translated about 100 AD, affirms the MT,
very strongly. The Vulgate, translated in 400 AD, affirms the MT, quite strongly, and in a spiritual atmosphere
where Jerome took a lot of flack for simply affirming the Hebrew Both are early witnesses. And the Great Isaiah
Scroll affirms that the Masoretes did not tamper with perhaps the most messianic-charged prophetic passages
in the whole OT.

On the other side you have the heavily tampered Greek OT, with Jewish and Christian and Ebionite
versions and tamperings (such as a section of Romans coming into Psalms). You also have the complex
DSS, which however in many ways affirms the Masoretic Text, although generally not to the degree of
exactness as in , eg. the Peshitta.

Note, I am not against such a study. On the NT I did a Peshitta Byzantine or Alexandrian study. (Result:
75% - 80% Byzantine over Alexandrian... I posted it on the textual criticism forum to amusing responses.)
They can be a lot of fun and insightful. I simply personally do not see any need to re-open up an issue that
I have previously studied and examined and concluded.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page