Replies

As Catholic, I go by Jerome's Vulgate as definitive, and he largely followed the masoretic version of the Old Testament.

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.

I would point you to your own post to Kosta: the LXX, like the Targums, is more a dynamic-equivalent translation than a word-for-word translation. That's actually one of the things that makes it so useful as a historical resource, since it gives us insight into the understandings of the translators.

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.