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.