This is dispositive for me. I don't really care what linguistic and historical path has the deposit of Faith delivered tot he Apostles followed. The Septuagint illumines the thinking of the apostles. As a Christian, this is of the primary importance.
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?
Something similar. I would say that new translations are useless and many are outright harmful. If one wants to understand better the Vulgate, he should ask the Church for guidance or look at the Greek and Hebrew originals for clarification -- exactly what St. Jerome did.
you're saying that we should not follow the Apostle--and Rabbi--Sha'ul's example
See above. The point was that St. Paul was more likely than the other, more hellenized disciples to use the Hebrew scripture, hence his preference cannot be used to deprecate the septuagint. I am by the way, waiting for you to name non-Pauline instances where, you say, the quoting of the Old Testament i the New followes the Hebrew text.
notice how seldom Yeshua corrected them from tradition rather than the written text, by the way?
Of course. This is because the Hebrew Tradition is deprecated in Christianity to a considerable extent. This says nothing of the role of the Christian Tradition.
the mere fact that Jamnia ratified what was already accepted hardly makes it wrong.
Could be, but what the Jewish authority outside of Christianity considered canon is simply not relevant, whether at Jamnia or at other times.
Alex, being a simple Greek, I don't understand the issue here. The Church uses various versions of the canon of Scripture with minor differences in the Greek and Latin; the West the Vulgate, we Greeks the Byzantine Canon and the Septuagint as our "approved" texts. I don't know about the Arabs and the Slavs, but I am confident they do the same. This is what The Church has determined. Why would we ever care what "older" or "other" versions might exist except to the extent that they might, as translations into the vernacular, lead anytone in The Church astray? What I mean is, who cares what the Jews established or how the Protestants translated the Vulgate or the Byzantine Canon or the Septuagint?
No, the LXX illuminates the thinking of the pre-Apostolic Jewish translators. Which is what makes it so useful: When it translates almah in Isa. 7:14 as parthenos, "virgin," no one can accuse the translators of having a Christian bias.
Anyway, see my most recent post to Kosta: The NT authors did not always favor the LXX, so your thesis just went right out the window.
I would say that new translations are useless and many are outright harmful.
Not all translations are created equal, granted. But at the same time, linguistic scholarship did not freeze in the fourth (or seventeenth) century, nor did textual criticism, so translations that take into account up-to-date scholarship are a must.
Jerome went back to the Hebrew because he understood the futility of getting an accurate reading doing translations of translations. If you're getting your English translation from the Vulgate, then you dishonor his memory.
If one wants to understand better the Vulgate, he should ask the Church for guidance or look at the Greek and Hebrew originals for clarification -- exactly what St. Jerome did.
I do go to the Church for guidance--just not your church. And looking at the Greek and Hebrew originals for clarification is exactly what I've been arguing this whole time. Nice to see that you agree with me.
The point was that St. Paul was more likely than the other, more hellenized disciples to use the Hebrew scripture . . .
lol My friend, the Galileans were more prone to speak Aramaic than Greek (why do you think Peter and John needed help from translators?), and they used Hebrew in the synagogues. We also know from the DSS that Hebrew, not just Aramaic, was in common use in Judea, so if they were going down for the Feasts and preaching the Gospel there, they most likely could read the Scriptures in Hebrew as well as in the Targums.
I am by the way, waiting for you to name non-Pauline instances where, you say, the quoting of the Old Testament i the New followes the Hebrew text.
Again, see my post to Kostas.
Of course. This is because the Hebrew Tradition is deprecated in Christianity to a considerable extent. This says nothing of the role of the Christian Tradition.
Actually, the Apostles went out of their way to keep Jewish Tradition as well as the Torah (cf. Acts 21:20-26)--they just didn't make it a requirement for Gentiles. Their disputes with the Pharisees were over the latter's hardened hearts and in letting their traditions violate the Torah in many (not all) cases. Moreover, their disputes were only with a subset of the Pharisees, since Sha'ul and many other Jewish believers remained a part of the Pharisee sect (Acts 15:5, 23:6). In fact, Yeshua's actions and teachings were not that far removed from the Pharisees (in particular, with Rabbi Hillel, who died when Yeshua was just 10 or 13), and the fact that He was invited into their homes for table-fellowship indicates that He followed their traditions closely enough to be considered "clean" for fellowship!
But if you, not knowing or understanding the historical and cultural backdrop of the NT, want to denigrate the Pharisees and the Jews in general, so be it. However, don't think that you can judge them for adding their traditions on top of Scripture so as to violate it and get away with doing the exact same thing! A Pharisee by any other name . . .
Could be, but what the Jewish authority outside of Christianity considered canon is simply not relevant, whether at Jamnia or at other times.
On the contrary, Jewish authority before Christianity as to the canon is very important, since it tells us what Bible Yeshua and His disciples used. Josephus and Jamnia may have recorded their canonical lists shortly after the advent of our Lord, but they were not making up anything new; rather, like the counsels that discussed the NT canon in the fourth century, they were merely ratifying and passing on what was already long-established by their time.