Skip to comments.Did St. Jerome's Vulgate (containing the Masoretic Text) provide correct quotes for the NT?
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?
If the Masoretic Text is a translated work (and it is) that appeared around the 4th century, (barring any earlier Masoretic Text that preceded it yet did not survive at the time Jerome’s Vulgate was completed), how could Jesus have quoted from it?
For that matter, is any translation of the bible into its many languages “God inspired”? No. God gave him a brain, the Catholic Church gave him an education, and he made good use of them. As for the Protestant version....they left out some and that wasn’t divinely inspired me thinks or you would have to say the earlier Church Council was WRONG, in which case the whole dang thing, every bit of it becomes suspect. Maybe the unhappies are right?
The Original Manuscripts for both the OT and NT possessed divine inspiration. Given that we have the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are nearly identical to most modern OT texts, it would be likely that the mid 20th century discovery of them - after 2,000 years (depending upon the dating of the Qumran Community) - would line up nearly identically to the Original Manuscripts of the OT.
The Original Manuscripts were inspired.
The Dead Sea Scrolls (from the Qumran Community) are nearly identical to modern OT texts, and it would seem likely that given 2,000 years from then until now, (depending upon the dating of the Qumran Community), that the preceding years to the Qumran Community did not diminish the efficacy of the OT text.
But what of Uncials B, S, and V?
Are they the best and most reliable if they did not possess inspiration in the act of compilation? Was the act of compiling these Uncials inspired?
How so, if Uncial S contains unauthoritative NT works (both Barnabas and Hermas)?
And what of Uncial B since it contains unauthoritative 3 and 4 Maccabees as well as 2 Clement?
Translations aren’t “inspired.”
Even though the Word has been thru at least a half dozen translations, G_d hasn't changed one bit.
Have faith in Him, not man.
Rejoice! I've got a home in Glory land that outshines the sun!
Fear not death, for our Savior has defeated it, and he's coming back for you!
So the Versions (OT Septuagint, Peshito and Vulgate) do not carry inspiration?
What of Uncials B, S and V?
Did the mere act of the compilation of them (along with the aforementioned Versions) possess inspiration equal to the inspiration of the Original Manuscripts? 50% of the inspiration? 10%?
Exactly right. Men will say it is but they have nothing to back up that claim.
Jesus quoted from memory.............
If the Versions (and Uncials B, S and V) weren’t inspired at the level that the Original Manuscripts (be they the OT or NT Originals) were, then all we have - and all we need - are the tens of thousands of NT fragments that survive from the 1st and 2nd century AD along with the OT Dead Sea Scrolls.
Hmmm. If so, was Jerome correct in his translation of His quoted memory? :)
To the extent any translation faithfully renders the autographs, it, too may be considered as “inspired,” which is to say it is a means whereby the good and gracious will of God is revealed through the Holy Spirit. The Vulgate, like any translation, has weaknesses. My scholarship in regard to the biblical texts is cursory, but I surmise there are any number of papers on the subject of whether The Christ quoted from the Masoretic text, the Septuagint, or other. He, being The Word Incarnate, further Authors the biblical texts with every word as inscribed in the Gospels, whether quoting the OT Scriptures or not. My understanding is that He speaks both Greek and Aramaic during His time among the disciples, who later recall and record His words.
It never ceases to amaze me how much effort has gone into identifying and preserving the biblical texts.
No argument here. More knowledge from different sources is always useful.
For hundreds and hundreds of years people in Western Europe and elsewhere were sold a bill of goods concerning Jerome’s Vulgate - a translation that was thought then to be an accurate translation - but could not have been since Jesus on this Earth preceded the later Masoretic Text that Jerome used - and yet they still used it.
People today say, “THIS is the best manuscript or authoritative translation/compilation” the very same way that people who thought they had it right then (but didn’t) said it in the past.
T OT Masoretic Text - a text not in use at the time Jesus quoted the OT scriptures - was authoritatively used by Jerome.
Even though by doing so Jerome translated a work that people then in Jerome’s time would have attributed to Jesus quoting from, but would not and could not have been quoted by Jesus.
I don’t know if a Pseudoepigraphal-like translation would come closet to describing what Jerome effectively did, but it comes close...
My Hebrew, Latin, and Greek skills are lacking to the extent I would have no way to assess your assessment. It is a subject of curiosity for me, though. The Masoretic text is believed to be exceedingly accurate in conveying the Books of Moses as originally written, so it is not as though Jesus studied something different as he “grew in stature.”
Jerome was human. As such, he may have made a mistake or two, here and there. But if he was guided by the hand of God, then maybe his mistakes were few. It all boils down to faith. God would not have let his Word be polluted down thru the centuries..............
Neat trick, considering the earliest extant Masoretic proper dates at least some 500 years after Jerome.
Rather, to be precise, as with the Dead Sea Scrolls, one should argue a proto-Masoretic text, which ultimately must defend the Masoretic.
God inspired the original authors of the book of the Bible.
Any translation is not inspired. It doesn’t work that way.
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.