The Text of the New Testament

#21

Sometimes it’s difficult to keep focused on the key points over a number of post, but
Again, Let’s keep in mind what the subject of this thread is, to wit: What text was used as the basis of the OT. Let’s please keep in mind that the OP is Protestant which has it roots in Western Europe, so stick to the Western European provenence for the OT up until the 16th century.

So, what is the basis of the Bible in Western Europe used up until the 16th century?

We can of coarse bolster the point if we know that bulk of the NT citations and All of the Pauline quotes from the OT are from the Septuagent. With this it becomes really difficult to find any facts for any other scenario.

See, it’s not that difficult.

0 Likes

#22

None in the case of the Vulgate OT, because Jerome didn’t use any of those texts in making the Vulgate OT. Or am I missing something?

0 Likes

#23

The Alexandrian option would be the LXX/Septuagint. For some reason some Protestants refer to it as the Alexandrian version. Sometimes it’s difficult to keep focused on the key points over a number of post, but again, Let’s keep in mind what the subject of this thread is, to wit: What is the provenence of the text that was used as the basis of the Christian OT. Let’s please keep in mind that the OP is Protestant which has it roots in Western Europe, so stick to the Western European provenence for the OT up until the 16th century.

So, what is the basis of the OT of the Bible in Western Europe used up until the 16th century?

We can of coarse bolster the point if we know that bulk of the NT citations and All of the Pauline quotes from the OT are from the Septuagint. With this it becomes really difficult to find any facts for any other scenario.

See, it’s not that difficult.

0 Likes

#24

I am under the impression that the Byzantine and Western texts also have a Greek OT that is a copy of ancient LXX codices. What is your understanding?

Sometimes it’s difficult to keep focused on the key points over a number of post, but
Again, Let’s keep in mind what the subject of this thread is, to wit: What is the provenence of the text that was used as the basis of the Christian OT. Let’s please keep in mind that the OP is Protestant which has it roots in Western Europe, so stick to the Western European provenence for the OT up until the 16th century.

That’s what I’m trying to do, but I get the impression that I’m failing miserably and not understanding your explanations.

So, what is the basis of the OT of the Bible in Western Europe used up until the 16th century?

My answer would be: the Vulgate.

Perhaps it would help if I illustrated what goes through my mind to give that answer. When you say “what is the basis of the OT of the Bible in Western Europe,” the image that comes to mind is, if I was your average monk in Western Europe, and wanted to make a Bible, starting from scratch, what would I do?

Is that even relevant? Perhaps I’m misunderstanding what you mean by using the terms you are using. When you say “the Bible in Western Europe,” I’m thinking of thousands of copies of the Old Testament and the New Testament that were copied and preserved in monasteries until they were transferred to modern museums and archives. And when you ask about the “basis of the OT” in this regard, I’m thinking, what OT text did they use to make all those copies? Is that what you mean by those terms?

Anyway, if I was an ancient monk who wanted to make a Bible from scratch, well, I would contact the nearest person who owned a Vulgate Bible, and ask if I could copy it. And he had probably made his Vulgate by contacting someone before him, and that person had probably done the same thing, all the way back to St. Jerome himself. And St. Jerome didn’t use the Alexandrian, Western, or Byzantine texts to make his Old Testament, not if I understand the process of creating the Vulgate correctly. My understanding is, he contacted local Jews in Bethlehem to get access to Hebrew manuscripts, and translated his Old Testament directly from the Hebrew.

Therefore, I don’t see any place for the Alexandrian, Byzantine, or Western texts to enter into the picture at any point in the process. Now, I am assuming that our understandings of this process are very different at some point, in that you seem to say that one of those three texts is the basis for almost all OT translations in Western Europe, and I think that none of them is.

Are you saying that Western Europeans used the Byzantine, Western, or Alexandrian codices at some point, rather than the Vulgate? Or are you saying that one of those is the basis of the Vulgate OT? And if so, aren’t they all Greek? Because I thought the Vulgate OT was translated from the Hebrew, and not anything Greek. So what am I missing?

0 Likes

#25

I’m referring to Septuagint, that is why I use the terms LXX and Septuagint to remove any ambiguity.

That’s what I’m trying to do, but I get the impression that I’m failing miserably and not understanding your explanations. My answer would be: the Vulgate.

And the basis (that’s the question, what is the basis) of the Vulgate OT text is? - The LXX

Perhaps it would help if I illustrated what goes through my mind to give that answer.

Sure, the question I am addressing is - what is the basis of the Bible OT text as used in Western Europe from the time of the Apostles until the 16th century.
The evidence is really unambiguous. The basis is the LXX. This is the OT text used primarily by the Early Church, the preponderance of the New Testament writers and all of the Pauline letters as evidenced in the citations provided in previous posts.

Do you disagree? Please keep in mind that the LXX is the basis of the Vulgate OT text.

0 Likes

#26

That seems reasonable to me. By “Septuagint,” are you referring to a group of Greek translations from Hebrew manuscripts of the OT? Because that’s what I understand the Septuagint to be.

And the basis (that’s the question, what is the basis) of the Vulgate OT text is? - The LXX

Are you saying that the Old Testament of the Vulgate was translated from the Septuagint, and not from Hebrew manuscripts? Because that’s what I understand the term “basis” to mean in this context.

The evidence is really unambiguous. The basis is the LXX. This is the OT text used primarily by the Early Church, the preponderance of the New Testament writers and all of the Pauline letters as evidenced in the citations provided in previous posts.

Do you disagree?

I think I disagree with, or more probably I simply misunderstand, the first two sentences in the above quote, but not the third. The third sentence I definitely agree with.

0 Likes

#27

Most of this information is incorrect.

The Western Church has never followed the canon of the Septuagint, omitting works like the 151 Psalm and 3 and 4 Maccabees.

We have only a vague idea and little evidence about the canons of the Pharisees, Sadducees or Essenes or how they even viewed canonicity.

The Septuagint, while influential is not exclusively cited in the New Testament. As noted above, the Church’s scriptural canon has always been diverse. While used extensively in the West, the Septuagint had little influence in the East.

Only by Jews who were Greek speaking. The majority were not.

By some Christians in the Near East, yes. All, certainly not. See above.

This has been shown to be false on many threads here discussing the canon. The removal of books was a much later phenomenon.

There’s a great deal of misinformation promulgated on the Called to Communion site, particularly in its tendency to broad-brush all Protestants as Reformed. Best to do your own research.

0 Likes

#28

In terms of an underlying text, the Vulgate relies primarily on the Septuagint and only tangentially on Hebrew manuscripts. For the most part it’s a translation of a translation.

0 Likes

#29

Do you think it is a myth that St. Jerome translated the Old Testament directly from Hebrew manuscripts? Because I think I’ve seen evidence within his own writings that that is what he claimed to have done.

0 Likes

#30

Yes, this is most certainly a “myth”; I think that’s the most charitable characterization one could supply. But because virtually no Christian in the West knew Hebrew, there was no one around qualified to dispute Jerome’s claims.

If you’re interested, you can see for yourself by going verse by verse in Jerome’s translation notes for the book of Genesis–they are available in an English here: amazon.com/Jeromes-Questions-Genesis-Christian-Studies/dp/0198263503/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1421103992&sr=8-1&keywords=Jeromes+questions+in+genesis

That’s not to say that Jerome didn’t consult a Hebrew text, it’s just that he didn’t really follow it most of the time. That’s why you end up with bizarre translations based on an awkward Greek text like:

de fructu vero ligni quod est in medio paradisi praecepit nobis Deus ne comederemus et ne tangeremus illud ne forte moriamur. dixit autem serpens ad mulierem nequaquam morte moriemini (Gen 3:3-4).

People will “die death” instead of “surely die”; the simple garden (hortus) turns into a pardisum, etc.

0 Likes

closed #31
0 Likes

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.