Of course the Masoretic text is not a translation. To traditional Jews, it doesn’t even determine meaning. Meaning is determined by separate Jewish traditions.
The Masoretic text is just an agreed-upon convention for pronouncing (and spelling and punctuating) the traditional texts. I’ll repeat: The Masoretic text, to a traditional Jew, does not determine meaning.
The Masoretic text is just an agreed-upon convention for pronouncing (and spelling and punctuating) the traditional texts. I’ll repeat: The Masoretic text, to a traditional Jew, does not determine meaning.
Bad choice.
Mark 7.13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Excuse me for accidentally (due to haste) referring to the Masoretic Text as a translation, when I clearly also referred to it as a Text. Excuse me as well for referring to Codex Vaticanus as V, when I have known for quite some time that it is Codex B.
I guess Roman Catholics will have to toss me in with Jerome, who (i.e. post #43), who somehow lacked Inspiration when excluding Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch and I and II Maccabees from the the Deuterocanon/Apocrypha, and reluctantly included only Tobit and Judith.
He was apparently only 2/7 inspired then (when one refers to these 7?) :) But since he included 2 of these 7 reluctantly, I guess then he was actually 0 for 7. This should be cause for alarm among Catholics if they believe what they believe and believe that he was one whit inspired.