Hebrew OT: WLC (Consonants Only)Now, how did that matter? Genesis 3:15 is known to have variants? I'd love to know that, -- as any lover of St. Jerome would.This text began as an electronic transcription by Whitaker and Parunak of the 1983 printed edition of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS). The transcription is called the Michigan-Claremont electronic text and was archived at the Oxford Text Archive (OTA) in 1987. Since that time, the text has been modified to conform to the photo-facsimile of the Leningrad Codex, Firkovich B19A, residing at the Russian National Library, St. Petersberg; hence the change of name. This version contains all 6 of the textual elements of the OTA document: consonants, vowels, cantillation marks, "paragraph" (pe, samekh) markers, and ketib-qere variants. Morphological divisions may be added later.
The BHS so-called "paragraph" markers (pe and samekh) do not actually occur in the Leningrad Codex. The editors of BHS use them to indicate open space deliberately left blank by the scribe. Pe ("open" paragraph) represents a space between verses, where the new verse begins on a new column line. This represents a major section of the text. Samekh ("closed" paragraph) represents a space of less than a line between verses. This is understood to be a subdivision of the corresponding "open" section. Since these markers represent an actual physical feature of the text, they have been retained.
The transcription was based on the "Supplement to the code manual for the Michigan Old Testament" by Alan Groves.
The WLC is maintained by the Westminster Hebrew Institute, Philadelphia, PA (http://whi.wts.edu/WHI)
Sword module maintained by Martin Gruner (mg dot pub at gmx dot net).
Imported from the CrossWire Bible Society's "The Sword Project" Bible Modules.
Septuagint/LXX/Greek Old Testament.
Containing Joshua B, Judges B, Daniel OG, Tobit BA, Susan OG, and Bel & the Dragon OG.
Derived From the following CCAT data sets:
LXXM = The morphologically analyzed text of CATSS LXX prepared by CATSS under the direction of R. Kraft (Philadelphia team).
and
PAR = Parallel Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek texts of Jewish Scripture, based on the Michigan-Claremont BHS consonantal text and the TLG LXX, created by the CATSS project under the direction of E. Tov (Jerusalem team). This data base currently is in a provisional form that will undergo continued modification as the CATSS project proceeds to its goals. Portions of PAR can be supplied by special arrangement.
which in turn derived from:
LXX = Septuaginta, ed. A. Rahlfs (Stuttgart: WŸrttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935; repr. in 9th ed., 1971).
An excerpt from the CCAT Readme follows. See here for the original.
READ ME File for CCAT Diskettes (version 1.0 [11/7/86 rak]) (adapted for Macintosh files [7/4/87 jct], revised 12/16/88)
I remember now.
The results pages (results of selected searches) on that particular site, cannot be directly linked to.
How conveniently obscure it all can be... for those who need things to remain obscure?
...the better to distract the casual reader, while making the argumentation just that more difficult to properly evaluate, then rebut if necessary.
In comparable copies of Latin Vulgate, there are known variants as for how Genesis 3:15 is presented to be. In fact, that was among my own original contentions when I raised the subject of the protoevangelium, in the first place.
At the time you wrote the above italicized sentences -- you had already been shown all but an extant, and now near-ancient copy of older Vulgate which would demonstrate beyond all doubt & claim to the contrary, that Jerome's original text varied from what came to be common, some time later.
At this juncture, we must trust the scholars when they tell us there are copies of Vulgate which read as I have (previously) explained.
You yourself provided link for Jimy Akin speaking of the issue. Yet there, I noticed that you hedged and guessed at things, rather than (as you could have, earlier in this thread) take Schaff's own word for there being multiple Vulgate MSS which read strikingly (no pun intended, lol) different than later Vulgate, at Gen 3:15.
If you can recall -- I also brought mention from Schaff of his referencing a particular writing of Jerome's in which that learned 'Doctor of the Church' expressed his own opposition to the idea of using the feminine forms, rather than the masculine.
That establishes well enough that the copies of Vulgate which followed that way of gender assignment for particular words in the protoevangelium, were following his own original hand -- and those which flipped the genders, or else extended the gender of the woman --->to identification of the gender of the individual who's "heel" would do the crushing, and be in turn struck<--- are the imposter copies, which did "rule the day" for long centuries.
Again sir, what is official "Catholic Bible"? You have yet to answer that question directly.
Is it not Latin Vulgate?
I could dig a little bit and show how according to the Roman Catholic Church Latin Vulgate is the only "official Bible".
Can you accept that by now, in this thread previous, it has been well enough established that there are variances within different versions of Latin Vulgate?
A link which S.R. provided to you, that I provided yet again with additional 'helpful hint' to, and also brought a line of text here to you, included mention of there being old Vulgate MSS., which did not at Gen 3:15 read as does the later Clementine Vulgate (and most others copies of Vulgate, other than the Nova Vulgata). Do you desire to include other language versions?
You were here all along talking about "Catholic Bible" -- but then make appeals to Hebrew and Greek text.
Ok, fine. I like those older source texts, myself. We all should value those, and see those as "source". I can claim both Hebrew and Greek texts as being "Protestant Bible" and unchanged for 2000 years just as easily, showing also (as I have already done) that OT Apocrypha was not part of the most widely accepted OT 'canon' in the earliest centuries of the Church -- in fact -- those writings were set aside, and described in no uncertain terms as "not" part of the OT canon, even as they were also at the same time commonly enough read within churches, and had been accessed for isolated phrases & passages to used in liturgy.
But I already know the arguments...and the liturgical one, when that is raised as some kind of proof for full & indiscriminate inclusion of the so-called deuterocanon, that is a specious (special pleading), logical fallacy sort of argument, for it ignores all the evidences which do in fact preclude an incorrect form of affirming the consequent.
Yet the question still begs. What is this "Catholic Bible" which you say is "unchanged for 2000 years?"
It must be Vulgate, for that is the only version which has official endorsement from highest levels.
Yet it can't be the Vulgate -- for that has not been around for 2000 years, even as that most Roman Catholic of bibles has also changed some -- to then be changed back, and at Genesis 3:15 the theological implications can be quite far reaching, depending upon how far who desires to stretch it (the theology).