Posted on 09/22/2014 8:25:59 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
Jerome's Vulgate was the first translation of the Old Testament into Latin --- directly from the Masoretic Text.
Given that, was Jerome's Version, the Vulgate, inspired by God if Jesus did not quote from the Masoretic Text?
If Jesus Christ did not quote from the Masoretic Text, what authoritative power(s) could the original Vulgate have contained, and what authentic inspiration did Jerome possess at that time of his translation?
At the time its translation the Vulgate was considered to be authoritative, but how correct were any at this time to declare the Vulgate to be authoritative and/or inspired? If it was not considered to be either authoritative or inspired, then why was it given undue prominence at that time?
I don’t want to go all Hillary on you, but you are obviously trying to make some point. So one is naturally inclined to ask, what difference does it make?
If the Dead Sea Scrolls are nearly identical to the translated text you are concerned about, and yet they predate or are contempaneous with the speaker, Jesus, what difference does it make?
"It stands written, never to change from thenceforth throughout eternity."
The statement that stands forever is (as transkated):
"Man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
The kernel here is to discern whether what I just wrote is or is not inspired, whereas if written in paleo-Hebrew I think it truly would be an apograph, but of course not an autograph.
From R. A. F Mackenzie, S.J., Professor of Old Testament, Jesuit Seminary
“After Damasus’ death, Jerome, finding himself out of favor with the vlergy of Rome, migrated to Palestine in 385. He settled in Bethlehem, where henceforward he devoted himself to the monastic life, to his Hebrew studies, and to the production of Scriptural translations and commentaries. He had conceived the ambitious project of a complete new version of he Old Testament Scriptures directly from the original texts, so that Latin-speaking Christians should have available a Bible more faithful than the Old Latin version made from the Septuagint. ... Although Jerome was not one to accept any man’s authority blindly, still he had learned from his Jewish teachers a great deal besides the bare knowledge of Hebrew. Along with much valuable erudition, he had acquired their exaggerated idea of the infallibility of the 4th century Hebrew text and its superiority when they told him which books were canonical and which were not, especially since their list had been fixed for three centuries, while the extent of the Christian canon was still somewhat indefinite. Hence he omitted from his program of translation most of the books of the Septuagint ( that is, the Apocrypha of the Authorized Version) - Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, I and II Maccabees, - and only reluctantly translated Tobit, Judith, and the Greek additions to the books of Damiel and Esther. ...”
The Encylopedia Americana, Copyright 1961, page 197, Volume 26.
This is an older Encyclopedia set (among even older ones in my collection), as it serves here to avoid the pitfall of historical revisionism. So the Vulgate was “inspired” but what of the Old Latin Versions made from the Septuagint? They, containing the Septuagint were inspired, then Jerome’s work was, then later the Septuagint was once again the way to go? If so, who was inspired on this” “inspired” roller coaster?
Was MaI get it... Those older Latin compilations with the Srptuagint and all Catholic Apocryphal books were inspired... But where did that leave Jerome and his Vulgate minus 5 Catholic Apocrypha? I guess he was inspired until the Council of Trent, then the older Latin then were inspired once again...
Read post #43. From Jesuit professor of Old Testament, Toronto University.
The Dead Sea scrolls found to be from the Qumran community probably were from 135 BC - around the time of Jesus. - were contemporary to and with the proto-Masoretic text, begun around 150 BC. The Masoretic Text made its way into the Tanakh, as undoubtedly did similar copies of the OT, of which the Dead Sea Scrolls were then some of many just like them....
No, I’m just not shilling baseless Ad Hominem as you are...
Question : after reading post #43, a part of Jesuit Seminary professor Mackenzie’s work (the fuller account of which I will post later) of many Catholic professors I could cite, whicj is it: the older Latin versions were inspired with the Septuagint, then Jerome’s Vulgate minus the Septuagint was inspired, then later the Trent Council discovered that the pre-Jerome Old Latin versions this time again with the Septuagint in tow were again inspired? Poor Jerome, the church was for Jerome’s Vulgate before they were against it and went back to the pre-Jerome Old Latin versions with the Septuagint.
Or was Jerome inspired? Was the Vulgate inspired?
Read post #43, and what the Jesuit professor of Old Testament at Jesuit Seminary, Toronto had to say - he being but one of several Catholic professors have to say.
Yes, as he points out, there were older Latin versions , but they were not as faithful to the Old Testament, which is why he relied on others in Paledtine more knowledgeable than he, of which the Catholic Vjurch apparently had no problem with, as they fully accepted Jerome’s work as being authoritative, with Jewish teachers providing the 3-century fixed OT canon to him.
Was Jerome inspired to not accept the Septuagint if his work is, as you say, “authoritative”?
The Apostle Paul said that is was the writers of scripture who were inspired by the Holy Spirit who moved on them. IOW, the Inspirer (the Holy Spirit) inspired the writers.
But, if you believe you are correct, was the minus-the-Septuagint Vulgate, with Jerome’s reluctant inclusion addition of Tobit and Judith, truly inspired? (read post #43).
Post #43 (which I posted a few minutes ago) answers it...
OK, if you think you are right, back it up. Give us three or four references that hold your opinion. Don't be afraid, if you are not wrong. First of all, none of these writers were authors of Scripture. Authors of a grocery list, perhaps, but not authors of Scripture.
You are in fact shilling for diminishment of Christian Heritage by trying to build confusion and distrust of the Bible people use. And now in your deception of trying to assert you are not trying to diminish the origins of Christianity you are showing yourself to be of your father.
Second, I was concerned that you were not giving the human writers their due. God used the human writers. They did not act as oracles of Him. Contrast this with how Muslims believe that Muhammed received the Koran. He was but a transcriptionist.
Third, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states the following about inspiration and scripture:
*********************
105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit." 69
"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself." 70
106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more." 71
*********************
This makes the point, as you did, that God is the author of Scripture. It also states, as I was emphasizing, that the men who wrote the books were "true authors."
I am willing to agree that we both have a point.
He did ? When ?
Do you ANYTHING about how Jewish Scholars assembled and codified the Masoretic text
BTW, it's not a translation...
You really should stop asking asinine questions...
Do any of the translations say that we should worship false idols and call a priest a Father?
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.
non sequitor
Since meaning is determined by tradition, or perhaps by the Holy Spirit, Masoretic or non-Masoretic, or even Septuagint or KJV, wouldn’t matter for the overwhelming majority of situations.
The point of it is that it doesn't make God happy that you enjoy in your traditions, jewish or otherwise.
So God is happy with all the various explanations claimed to be given by the Holy Spirit?
Are you mocking the Holy Spirit or God?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.