Fw: Fw: use of LXX by Catholic Church
Brian Dean bridean@worldnet.att.net
Tue, 10 Mar 1998 20:32:49 -0500 (00889601569, 19980311012450.AAA25052@briandea)
>>RON
>>What Claire should have said is that to the RC Church the Vulgate is
>>considered to be authoritative. The vulgate is a translation of the LXX,
>>whose canon they accept.
>
>NANCY
>No, Ron, the Vulgate is *not* a translation of the LXX. When Jerome
>translated the OT he used the Septuagint very sparingly. Jerome made his OT
>translation from Hebrew, Ron, not from Greek. The Vulgate is *not*, I
>repeat, is *not* a translation of the Septuagint. Period.
>
>Joseph Crea posted the following after I had pointed out to Claire that the
>RCC used the Vulgate for centuries, not the LXX.
>
>CREA
> According to the article on translations in the __Oxford Companion to
>the Bible__ by S.P. Brock (Reader in Syriac Studies, University of Oxford,
>England), Jerome initially were made from Origen's revision of the LXX.
>However, sometime later (ca. 393)
>
> "...he boldly turned to the Hebrew original as a better source, and in
>the course of a dozen years hhe produced a Latin version that quickly became
>the standard version of the Western church (hence the term 'Vulgata'),
>replacing the Old Latin, translated from the LXX. Jerome's undertaking was
>both remarkable and revolutionary; remarkable in that he achieved a
>knowledge of Hebrew unique for a Christian of that period (it went well
>beyond Origen's), revolutionary in that he successfully overthrew the
>authority of the LXX within the Latin church. Of the many Vulgate
>manuscripts, the Codex Amiatinus, a complete Bible of the early eighth
>century, is one of the most important."
>
>NANCY
>Let me add this entry from the Merriam Webster _Encyclopedia of Literature_
>(1995, p. 1157)
>
>"Jerome started with the Gospels, using a Greek manuscript as his principal
>source. For the rest of the New Testament he stuck to the existing texts for
>the most part. Jerome then produced three revisions of Psalms, all extant.
>The first, based on the Septuagint, is known as the Roman Psalter because it
>was incorporated into the litugy at Rome. The second, produced in Palestine
>from the Hexaplaric Septuagint, tended to bring the Latin closer to the
>Hebrew. . . [I]t came to be know as the Gallican Psalter. This version was
>later adopted into the Vulgate. The third revision, actually a fresh
>translation, was made directly from the Hebrew, but it never enjoyed wide
>circulation. In the course of preparing the last, Jerome realized the
>futility of revising the Old Latin soley on the basis of the Greek, and by
>the end of 405 he had exectued his own Latin translation of the entire Old
>Testament based on the "Hebrew truth" (Hebraica veritas).
> "Because of the canonical status of the Greek version within the
>church, Jerome's version was received at first with much suspicion, for it
>seemed to cast doubt on the authenticity of the Septuagint and exhibited
>divergences from the Old Latin. The innate superiority of Jerome's version
>assured its ultimate victory, and by the 8th century it had become the Latin
>Vulgate ("the common version") throughout the churches of Western
>Christendom, where it remained the chief Bible until the Reformation."
>
>
>RON
>Ultimately any translation will fail to capture
>fully the nuances of meaning of a particular text. In translating the
>New American and other Catholic Bibles earlier sources were used. The
>Vulgate continues to be authoritative.
>
>NANCY
>Well, the Vulgate is not the bible that was used by the writers of the NT.
>It didn't even exist. And it is not a translation of the Septuagint, which
>was the bible most commonly cited and used by the authors of the NT.
>
>RON
>>for a divinely guided Church authority. You guessed it: The Catholic
>>Church! The Bible is only a teaching tool, created by this organization.
>
>NANCY
>Well, Ron, I am glad you see through all the word-of-god nonsense and
>realize that the bible is simply tool created by and used by the church to
>manipulate, er, teach its sheep.
>
RON
Why must you attribute evil motives to the Church? That's not very
sporting of a way to conduct an argument.
I stand corrected on the origin of the Vulgate. What I meant to say is
that the canon of Catholic Scripture is derived from the LXX. Of course
we must also include the NT Scriptures as well. The point is, it is not
the age of a particular manuscript that determines its veracity. The
canon of Scripture is something determined by later Church councils.
Many versions and books were excluded by these councils and last I heard
the Latin version (not Greek or Hebrew) is authoritative for Catholics.
Since the Church determines (by the Holy Spirit's guidance) which texts
are valid we must look to the Church for guidance and not individual
manuscripts.