Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [lxx] Why not the LXX?

Expand Messages
  • Schmuel
    Hi LXX folks, ... Yes it is a hole in your thinking in the post :-) a) Jerome for the most part used the Hebrew Tanach. (There are some nuances where he did
    Message 1 of 7 , Oct 8, 2005
      Hi LXX folks,

      Bart Torbert wrote:
      >One hole in this line of thought is my ignorance of what Jerome used for the Vulgate. Anybody know this?

      Yes it is a hole in your thinking in the post :-)

      a) Jerome for the most part used the Hebrew Tanach. (There are some nuances where
      he did two translations, such as a sections of Psalms).

      b) Jerome specifically stated that it found the Greek OT to be what one might call problematic.
      So he translated from the Hebrew Tanach instead precisely because of the Greek OT difficulties.
      These are both particular verses as well as the general inconsistency of the Greek manuscripts.
      (something that is seen also today in Greek OT studies) Jerome made this decision
      even though it led to a lot of flak from church folks.

      c) Jerome moved to Bethlehem, studied with Jews, and used the library in Caesarea to
      help expand his knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic and specifically as an aid
      to the Tanach translation. (whether he learned much Aramaic is a matter of some
      controversy, but definitely Hebrew).

      d) The early translations from Hebrew to the Latin (Vulgate) and the Aramaic (Peshitta)
      show that the Masoretic Text is generally in line with the Hebrew text being used
      at the time of the early church. These are far closer to the Masoretic Text than
      to any of the various Greek OT. The Peshitta translation can be seen in the
      Lamsa work, which is passable from a scholarly perspective.

      Of course, the DSS is a complicated additional discussion, with many sections showing
      that the Masoretes didn't tamper at all, that they were ultra-faithful copyists even in the
      most Messianic sections -- (such as the Great Isaiah Scroll) -- yet other books from the
      DSS diverge, or have a variety of texts. The Targumim are also difficult to pigeonhole
      because the translation involves so much commentary and the Targumim vary so much
      in time and background. It would however interesting to see a study on the clear and
      simple cases, such as the Genesis chronology numbers, comparing Targum Onkelos
      and Pseudo-Jonathan. (I did a mini-look myself some years ago).

      Hope that helps. Granted this relatively simple exposition above may not always be the
      most comfortable for those with a large interest vested in "LXX Studies", however I have tried
      to give a very clear exposition of the basics.

      btw, at one time there was a wonderful 50 page or so article on Jerome's history on the
      web, from a Journal. However, I do not seem to have it bookmarked, and I have not found
      it lately. It would be really fine to read it again. Much of my background understanding
      came from that unnamed article, although I have confirmed the basics from encyclopedias
      and articles and such. In addition, it would be helpful still to see a small discussion explaining
      the situation with the parts of Psalms where there were multiple translations (and any other
      unusual sections of the Vulgate Tanach).

      Shalom,
      Steven Avery
      Queens, NY
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic









      >So do I have any idea what I am talking about?
      >
      >Bart
      >
      >
      >
      >----------
      >YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
      >
      > * Visit your group "<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lxx>lxx" on the web.
      > *
      > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > * <mailto:lxx-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>lxx-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > *
      > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
      >
      >
      >----------
    • Matthew Johnson
      ... That is approximately right, but an oversimplified history of his translations. I suggest using jerome vulgate psalms hexapla as a search in any of the
      Message 2 of 7 , Oct 8, 2005
        --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Ross" <BillRoss@n...> wrote:


        > <Bart>

        > >> ... One hole in this line of thought is my ignorance of
        > >> what Jerome used for the Vulgate. Anybody know this?

        > <Bill>

        > If I am not mistaken, Jerome made 2 translations - one
        > from the LXX (hence it contains the 2nd canon) and one
        > from the Masoretic.

        That is approximately right, but an oversimplified history
        of his translations. I suggest using "jerome vulgate psalms
        hexapla" as a search in any of the popular engines, Yahoo!
        Google, etc. to see how much more complicated the situation
        is.

        One of the first things I noticed doing that search myself,
        was that contrary to my very deceptive memory, both
        Jerome's "Gallican Psalter" and his "Roman Psalter" were
        done on the basis primarily of the LXX (more precisely,
        OG). Neither was made on the basis of the Hebrew. I forget
        which of these is said to make much use of Hexaplar LXX (OG)
        readings.

        However, in about 392, he did a translation direct from the
        Hebrew.

        > He was criticized for translating the
        > Hebrew, which appears to have been taken as a novelty
        > since the LXX was clearly the bible of Paul, et al.

        This too is an oversimplification. After all, two of his
        translations used the LXX, and were still criticized for
        eliminating certain lines in the Psalms that had struck a
        chord in the Latin christian's heart, so they were sorry to
        see them go.

        In fact, one such line, mentioned by Augustine himself, showed up in
        the search in
        http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc02/htm/iv.v.lxiv.htm.

        After all, it is not just modern day partisan's of older
        editions of the Book of Common Prayer who exhibited this
        behavior;)
      • Bart Torbert
        From other bits of research on old texts, I get the impression that having an exact copy of the absolute original text and preserving the author s literary
        Message 3 of 7 , Oct 8, 2005
          From other bits of research on old texts, I get the impression that having an "exact copy of the absolute original text" and "preserving the author's literary integrity" was not such a big thing as it is today.   So a copyist was allowed to use their own creativity to enhance to story.  The idea was to convey the ideas, not the letter-by-letter wording.  So we get great divergence in various copies of a text which at the time would not have rendered a heavily edited text "non-canonical" or one considered more authoritative than the others.
           
          Bart
           
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.