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.
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!
Jesus quoted from 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.
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.
This is the second post I’ve personally seen you write on the subject in question.
What gives? What are you getting at, exactly? What are you trying to convince people of, or dissuade them from?
Jerome's Vulgate was the first translation of the Old Testament into Latin --- directly from the Masoretic Text.
The Vulgate was not the first translation into Latin. And it was not from Masoretic Text.
At the time its translation the Vulgate was considered to be authoritative,
The New Testament thought it was perfectly fine to make use of a then current translation of the OT (the Septuagent), and it is authoritative. I'm not sure what your point is.
Sewing doubt still ... so obvious for whom you are striving.
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?
Do any of the translations say that we should worship false idols and call a priest a Father?
Therefore, it is not wise to take the position that NT characters quoted from the Septuagint.
If you wish, I will rummage through my notes until I get the references.
Regarding Tobit and Judith, as welll as other books of the Apocrypha, you might want to look up the word Deuterocanonical, if you don't already know what that means, and see if Judith and Tobit are in that classification. Just because Jerome copied them doesn't make them inspired writings. After all, the earliest King James Bibles all had the Apocrypha bound with it. That approach was discarded awhile ago for the AV. But my NEB had them, and I read them, but didn't find them very interesting or useful.