As Catholic, I go by Jerome's Vulgate as definitive, and he largely followed the masoretic version of the Old Testament. I also have some familiarity with the languages involved, but I did not studied the texts in linguistical depth; the Orthodox (Christian, of course) know more and have a greater stake in the debate, so I punt.
From what I know, the Septuagint was in the Early Church's mindspace generally speaking, more than the Hebrew originals. St. Paul might be an exception here, since he was a trained pharisee; and of course all the quotations he most likely did from memory. Understand that it is the mindset of the early Church that closes the deal with me and most Catholics, not the letter of the Old Testament.
Secondly, there is no guarantee that the Hebrew original is what we know from the post-Jamnia Hebrew Canon; since Jamnia is the same council that also condemned Christianity and put a demarkation line between it and Judaism, we as Christians cannot be commanded by their decisions.
Lastly, of the the extant copies of the Old Testament is is the Septuagint that is the oldest, is it not?
For these reasons I take the Septuagint extremely seriously, and expect it to reflect the mind of the Church very well, even if the Vulgate is the perfect expression of it.
Waitwaitwait . . . you're saying that one should accept the Vulgate as definitive--but not follow Jerome's example in going back to the original languages of the Scripture to do any new translation?
From what I know, the Septuagint was in the Early Church's mindspace generally speaking, more than the Hebrew originals. St. Paul might be an exception here, since he was a trained pharisee; and of course all the quotations he most likely did from memory.
So again . . . you're saying that we should not follow the Apostle--and Rabbi--Sha'ul's example in becoming intimately familiar with the text in its original language before doing any translation? Well by golly, forget this Vulgate-Septuagint-Masoretic debate, I'll just go by the good ol' King James!
Or not. I think I'll follow the example of the good Pharisee. And while I have issues with Jerome on other matters, I have to give the man credit enough for being the first person in two or more centuries by his time to be smart enough to realize that its stupid to do a translation from another translation, and return to the original!
Understand that it is the mindset of the early Church that closes the deal with me and most Catholics, not the letter of the Old Testament.
Yes, yes, just like it was the mindset of the rabbis that closed the deal for the Pharisees who sided against the Messiah rather than return to the letter of the Tanakh. Ever notice how seldom Yeshua corrected them from tradition rather than the written text, by the way?
Secondly, there is no guarantee that the Hebrew original is what we know from the post-Jamnia Hebrew Canon; since Jamnia is the same council that also condemned Christianity and put a demarkation line between it and Judaism, we as Christians cannot be commanded by their decisions.
Already dealt with some posts ago; no other contemporary source considered the Apocrypha to be canon, so the mere fact that Jamnia ratified what was already accepted hardly makes it wrong. The disputes were all about whether books we now accept as canon (most notably Esther and Song of Solomon) belonged in the canon, not over, for example, 1 and 2 Maccabees.
Lastly, of the the extant copies of the Old Testament is is the Septuagint that is the oldest, is it not?
No. The DSS are far older than any extant copies of the LXX.
For these reasons I take the Septuagint extremely seriously, and expect it to reflect the mind of the Church very well, even if the Vulgate is the perfect expression of it.
Yep, KJV-Onlyists.