In Jerusalem, scholars trace Bible's evolution

[Hail_Linus]

The Septuagint, the rabbi’s translation of the Hebrew to Greek, was only of the Torah or the five books of Moses. Christians often mistakenly refer to the Septuagint regarding this translation by the rabbi’s as also being a translation of the prophets. Secondly, the Torah is held in Jewish tradition to have been dictated from God to Moses. There are no “versions” of the Torah. A Torah scroll with even a single letter wrong may not be used. When the mass in-gathering of Jews occurred following the Jews regaining their independence over their homeland, Torah scrolls from Jewish communities around the world, many isolated, were gathered together. There were no textual differences in any of the Torah scrolls except for a single letter in scrolls from a single isolated Yemenite community, which had no effect on the textual meaning and was immediately corrected. Thirdly, the rabbi’s feared the possibility that their translation of the Torah into Greek could be tampered with. Therefore 15 key passages of the Septuagint translation were placed in the Talmud, Tractate Megilla 9a-9b, so that the Septuagint could always be compared to the original translation of these passages. In the current version of the Septuagint, Christian translators have altered the translation of thirteen of the fifteen passages that the rabbi’s placed into the Talmud.In other words, Christian translators have falsified the rabbi’s original Septuagint translation of the Torah and it cannot be relied upon for linguistic proof.

The original argument by Jews and Protestants was that the Deuterocanonical books (apocrypha) in the Septuagint were not originally written in Hebrew. I have never heard anyone say only the Torah was translated into Greek. Anyway, those arguments have already been proven wrong. Thanks to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (which pre-dates the Septuagint) we now know that all books in the Catholic Bible were originally written in Hebrew except for Wisdom and 2 Maccabees. And those two books have been shown to have been translated into Hebrew.

Also, the Samaritan Torah has many differences from what I understand.

With all that said, I do believe the legitimate Torah Scrolls written for use by the Jews since the destruction of the temple are identical. The process of writing a Torah scroll is very detailed. The person writing the scroll has to say each word out loud as he writes it and if he makes one error the entire line must be erased.

The truth is we just don’t have enough facts. The Catholics and the Jews both have a Magisterium and Tradition they have faith in. We have a chain of teachers and Traditions we can trace all the way back to Biblical times.That was my point why it would not make a difference to a Catholic.

 

[Hail_Linus]

For me scripture is about what G-d brings out from your own sole when reading rather than exactly what is being read.

But i am very very interested in un modified or narrated writings of peoples past.

I remember what a difference reading the Quran is reading without narrations and in the correct order. For me i can see how its modifications lead peoples thinking especially when so many claim it has never changed.

Of course we all know the books of the bible are not an exact without change so we can look from a realistic perspective.

I look forward to seeing more on this project you speak of and thank G-d for your posting.

Pray well and stay well

There were actually many versions of the Quran. When this was discovered they chose one, claiming it was from Muhammad’s wife. The third Caliph Uthman destroyed all others and that is why there is only one version today. This was necessary since Sunnis consider the Quran to be coeternal with God.

There is a project which may be of interest to you. They have discovered at least one other version. The project is being conducted Europe. The exact location is being kept secret for security reasons.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

The original argument by Jews and Protestants was that the Deuterocanonical books (apocrypha) in the Septuagint were not originally written in Hebrew. I have never heard anyone say only the Torah was translated into Greek. Anyway, those arguments have already been proven wrong. Thanks to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (which pre-dates the Septuagint) we now know that all books in the Catholic Bible were originally written in Hebrew except for Wisdom and 2 Maccabees. And those two books have been shown to have been translated into Hebrew.

Actually, of the Deuterocanonical books, fragments of only Baruch, Sirach and Tobit were found at Qumran.

Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls likely pre-date the Septuagint, others are likely later.

 

[Steven_John]

There were actually many versions of the Quran. When this was discovered they chose one, claiming it was from Muhammad’s wife. The third Caliph Uthman destroyed all others and that is why there is only one version today. This was necessary since Sunnis consider the Quran to be coeternal with God.

There is a project which may be of interest to you. They have discovered at least one other version. The project is being conducted Europe. The exact location is being kept secret for security reasons.

Peace and blessings,
I have heard this before and feel it very reasonable form logic point. I know Quranic history is very guarded do you know where i can get credible un bias support for this position.

Most Muslims tell me the Quran is pure and when asked how they can be sure it is so. The response has been it says so. Not a valid argument considering i can get a dunny roll and write on what i like and write at the bottom all thats written is true and people would say it proves nothing.

Quranic history being so guarded only increase my scepticism.

Do Shias hold that it is not co etrenal? and where can i read some on this?

Bless ya

 

[Hail_Linus]

Actually, of the Deuterocanonical books, fragments of only Baruch, Sirach and Tobit were found at Qumran.

Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls likely pre-date the Septuagint, others are likely later.

Actually I think you are correct about the Dead Sea Scrolls. However, I do believe all scholars (if not most) agree all the books in the OT of the Catholic Bible were originally written in Hebrew except for Wisdom and 2 Maccabees. I will try to get more info on this.

 

[Hail_Linus]

Peace and blessings,
I have heard this before and feel it very reasonable form logic point. I know Quranic history is very guarded do you know where i can get credible un bias support for this position.

Most Muslims tell me the Quran is pure and when asked how they can be sure it is so. The response has been it says so. Not a valid argument considering i can get a dunny roll and write on what i like and write at the bottom all thats written is true and people would say it proves nothing.

Quranic history being so guarded only increase my scepticism.

Do Shias hold that it is not co etrenal? and where can i read some on this?

Bless ya

I really don’t know about Shias but they are only 10% of Islam.

It is not exactly correct to say Sunnis always believed this. In early Islam Sunnis were divided into to major schools of thought, the Mu’tazillites (who were very reason-based and heavily influenced by Greek Philosophy) and the Ash’arites. The Mu’tazillites did not believe the Quran was coeternal. There was a big conflict and the Ash’arites destroyed the Mu’tazillites. This left the Sunnis dominated by the Ash’arite mentality.

There is an interesting book by Robert R. Reilly (a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council) called “The Closing of the Muslim Mind” which explains these matters.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Actually I think you are correct about the Dead Sea Scrolls. However, I do believe all scholars (if not most) agree all the books in the OT of the Catholic Bible were originally written in Hebrew except for Wisdom and 2 Maccabees. I will try to get more info on this.

You’re right. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha (RSV) gives the language of origin for each of the writings. Wisdom and 2 Maccabees were originally written in Greek, the rest in Hebrew.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

So when there is a difference between the Hebrew text and the Greek text(s), which one do Catholics follow?

This is a hypothetical question. The LXX is a Greek translation of the Hebrew.

Original Christianity, and therefore the Catholic Church, is not based on either the New Testament or the Bible. It is based on the teaching of Christ to His Apostles through the Church. The Church wrote the NT during the first Christian century. Under the guidance of the Spiirt, she selected. canonized, and named 27 of her own writings as the NT, and canonized and named 46 writings of the Greek Septuagint she inherited from Jesus and the Apostles as the OT, and formed and named the Bible, at the end of the fourth century. The Church would teach as she teaches with or without the Scriptures. The Scriptures (all 73 books) are, however, the Church’s most cherished possession. In them are contained the whole of Catholic doctrine, either express or implied. Together with Sacred Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium (teaching authority), they provide a roadmap to eternity.

Jim Dandy

 

[Dave_Noonan]

This is a hypothetical question.

This is not hypothetical at all; there are lots of differences between the Septuagint and the Hebrew Bible. For example LXX Jeremiah excludes about 12% of the book of Jeremiah found in the Hebrew Bible. There are also many simpler differences. Here’s an example:

Exodus 4:24 (Translation of the Hebrew Bible):

“On the road, at a place where they spent the night, Yahweh met him and tried to kill him.”

LXX:

“On the road, at a place where they spent the night, an angel of the Lord met him and tried to kill him.”

Again, I was just asking when there is a discrepancy between the Septuagint and the Hebrew Bible, which one the Catholic Church follows.

 

[Hail_Linus]

This is not hypothetical at all; there are lots of differences between the Septuagint and the Hebrew Bible. For example LXX Jeremiah excludes about 12% of the book of Jeremiah found in the Hebrew Bible. There are also many simpler differences. Here’s an example:

Exodus 4:24 (Translation of the Hebrew Bible):

“On the road, at a place where they spent the night, Yahweh met him and tried to kill him.”

LXX:

“On the road, at a place where they spent the night, an angel of the Lord met him and tried to kill him.”

Again, I was just asking when there is a discrepancy between the Septuagint and the Hebrew Bible, which one the Catholic Church follows.

1. If a particular book is larger in the LXX such as Daniel then Catholics always include test in the LXX which is not in the Hebrew.
2. Your point on Exodus is just a matter of translation. The Septuagint IS a translation of the Hebrew. Perhaps those pre-Christians felt that was the proper translation. In any event, we would just make note of the difference. However, I must say the Hebrew translation you point to seems a little absurd. God would not “try” to kill. He is all powerful. God does what he wills, he doesn’t “try” to do anything. So in this particular case, I “personally” would go with the Septuagint being a proper translation as compared to the translation you provide.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

1. If a particular book is larger in the LXX such as Daniel then Catholics always include test in the LXX which is not in the Hebrew.
2. Your point on Exodus is just a matter of translation. The Septuagint IS a translation of the Hebrew. Perhaps those pre-Christians felt that was the proper translation. In any event, we would just make note of the difference. However, I must say the Hebrew translation you point to seems a little absurd. God would not “try” to kill. He is all powerful. God does what he wills, he doesn’t “try” to do anything. So in this particular case, I “personally” would go with the Septuagint being a proper translation as compared to the translation you provide.

So what about cases where the Septuagint text is shorter, as is the case in Jeremiah? Then do Catholics follow the Hebrew Text or the Septuagint? Is the default always to choose the longest text?

The example I gave from Exodus isn’t simply a matter of translation. In this verse, the Hebrew text is different from the Septuagint because the Septuagint contains the word “angel.” There is no angel in the Hebrew text.

This is just one very simple example. There are many, many more complicated differences between the Septuagint and the Hebrew text that are not just “matters of translation”–they are true differences between the texts. This is what textual criticism (OP) is all about, comparing the manuscripts and noting the differences.

So I’m curious which text in this example from Exodus 4:24 your Catholic Bible chooses–the Septuagint or the Hebrew? And I’m curious whether the editors indicate to the reader the fact that there is a difference between the two.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

So what about cases where the Septuagint text is shorter, as is the case in Jeremiah? Then do Catholics follow the Hebrew Text or the Septuagint? Is the default always to choose the longest text?

The example I gave from Exodus isn’t simply a matter of translation. In this verse, the Hebrew text is different from the Septuagint because the Septuagint contains the word “angel.” There is no angel in the Hebrew text.

This is just one very simple example. There are many, many more complicated differences between the Septuagint and the Hebrew text that are not just “matters of translation”–they are true differences between the texts. This is what textual criticism (OP) is all about, comparing the manuscripts and noting the differences.

So I’m curious which text in this example from Exodus 4:24 your Catholic Bible chooses–the Septuagint or the Hebrew? And I’m curious whether the editors indicate to the reader the fact that there is a difference between the two.

Exodus 4:24

NIV (Protestant) - At a lodging place on the way, the Lord met Moses, and was about to kill him. [Footnote: *lodging place. Perhaps near water, where travelers could spend the night. The Lord…was about to kill him. Moses has failed to circumcise his son (see Ge 17:9-14).

Douay (Catholic) - And when he was in his journey, in the inn, the Lord met him, and would have killed him. [Footnote: Ver. 24. *The Lord met him, and would have killed him. This was an angel representing the Lord, who treated Moses in this manner, for having neglected the circumcision of his younger son; which his wife understanding, circumcised her child upon the spot, upon which the angel let Moses go.]

Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) - On the journey, when Moses had halted for the night, Yahweh came to meet him and tried to kill him. [Footnote: e. A mysterious narrative difficult to interpret. Moses is on his way home and Yahwah is bent on killing him (cf. Jacob’s struggle with God, Gn 32:25-33). It seems fairly clear it is because Moses is uncircumcised, (cf. Gn 17:10+). Zipporah, therefore, circumcises her son and simulates circumcision for her husband by touching his male organ with her son’s foreskin…f. ‘Yahweh’; ‘the angel of Yahweh’ Greek.]

There are several “Catholic” translations.

Jim Dandy

 

[Hail_Linus]

So what about cases where the Septuagint text is shorter, as is the case in Jeremiah? Then do Catholics follow the Hebrew Text or the Septuagint? Is the default always to choose the longest text?

The example I gave from Exodus isn’t simply a matter of translation. In this verse, the Hebrew text is different from the Septuagint because the Septuagint contains the word “angel.” There is no angel in the Hebrew text.

This is just one very simple example. There are many, many more complicated differences between the Septuagint and the Hebrew text that are not just “matters of translation”–they are true differences between the texts. This is what textual criticism (OP) is all about, comparing the manuscripts and noting the differences.

So I’m curious which text in this example from Exodus 4:24 your Catholic Bible chooses–the Septuagint or the Hebrew? And I’m curious whether the editors indicate to the reader the fact that there is a difference between the two.

First let me make it clear that there is no official translation Catholics use.
For instance the verses below are translated from the Hebrew.

1. 
   *]The Jerusalem Bible the verse reads "“On the journey, when Moses had halted for the night, Yahweh came to meet him tried to kill him.”
   *]The Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition reads “At a lodging place on the way the Lord met him and sought to kill him.”
   
   The Jerusalem translation of the verse sounds like the translation you are using. Even though it is a Catholic translation I personally find it absurd.
   THE RSV is also from the Hebrew but is a translation that makes sense to me.
   There just is no perfect translation.
   
   The reason there is no perfect translation is the same reason there is no perfect translation software. Translating word for word often does not translate the meaning of the original statement. I can tell you from personal experience in translating legal documents that very often making a word for word translation is actually a very poor translation. It is possible the translators in the Septuagint felt it was necessary to translate in the manner they did. We must at least acknowledge that the translators of the Septuagint were educating in pre-Christian times and were probably very familiar with certain aspects of translating between the two languages that no scholar could possibly have today.
   
   In any event, we are not forced to choose between the Hebrew version and Greek version of Exodus 4:24.
   
   I can appreciate many different translations. I really like the New King James Version.
   Also the RSV-CE (probably the most respected today) is really just the Protestant translation called RSV with some minor changes and of course the addition of the Deuterocanonical books.
   
   Your question about Jeremiah is very interesting? I’ll have to look into that.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Exodus 4:24

NIV (Protestant) - At a lodging place on the way, the Lord met Moses, and was about to kill him. [Footnote: *lodging place

. Perhaps near water, where travelers could spend the night. The Lord…was about to kill him. Moses has failed to circumcise his son (see Ge 17:9-14).

Douay (Catholic) - And when he was in his journey, in the inn, the Lord met him, and would have killed him. [Footnote: Ver. 24. *The Lord met him, and would have killed him. This was an angel representing the Lord, who treated Moses in this manner, for having neglected the circumcision of his younger son; which his wife understanding, circumcised her child upon the spot, upon which the angel let Moses go.]

Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) - On the journey, when Moses had halted for the night, Yahweh came to meet him and tried to kill him. [Footnote: e. A mysterious narrative difficult to interpret. Moses is on his way home and Yahwah is bent on killing him (cf. Jacob’s struggle with God, Gn 32:25-33). It seems fairly clear it is because Moses is uncircumcised, (cf. Gn 17:10+). Zipporah, therefore, circumcises her son and simulates circumcision for her husband by touching his male organ with her son’s foreskin…f. ‘Yahweh’; ‘the angel of Yahweh’ Greek.]

There are several “Catholic” translations.

Jim Dandy

OK, so it looks like in this case at least they all give the Hebrew text priority over the Septuagint–so that answers my question. And the Jerusalem Bible at least notes that the Septuagint is different.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

First let me make it clear that there is no official translation Catholics use.
For instance the verses below are translated from the Hebrew.

1. 
   *]The Jerusalem Bible the verse reads "“On the journey, when Moses had halted for the night, Yahweh came to meet him tried to kill him.”
   *]The Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition reads “At a lodging place on the way the Lord met him and sought to kill him.”
   
   The Jerusalem translation of the verse sounds like the translation you are using. Even though it is a Catholic translation I personally find it absurd.
   THE RSV is also from the Hebrew but is a translation that makes sense to me.
   There just is no perfect translation.
   
   The reason there is no perfect translation is the same reason there is no perfect translation software. Translating word for word often does not translate the meaning of the original statement. I can tell you from personal experience in translating legal documents that very often making a word for word translation is actually a very poor translation. It is possible the translators in the Septuagint felt it was necessary to translate in the manner they did. We must at least acknowledge that the translators of the Septuagint were educating in pre-Christian times and were probably very familiar with certain aspects of translating between the two languages that no scholar could possibly have today.
   
   In any event, we are not forced to choose between the Hebrew version and Greek version of Exodus 4:24.
   
   I can appreciate many different translations. I really like the New King James Version.
   Also the RSV-CE (probably the most respected today) is really just the Protestant translation called RSV with some minor changes and of course the addition of the Deuterocanonical books.
   
   Your question about Jeremiah is very interesting? I’ll have to look into that.

1. 
   Yes, these are all pretty close to what I had; I’m sorry you find it absurd, but that’s what the text says–actually, I just did my own on the fly translation, so I wasn’t trying to use any one translation in particular. My question was whether the Catholic translators chose to translate the Hebrew text or Septuagint text–and they apparently chose the Hebrew text.
   
   We actually know more about some aspects of Biblical Hebrew now than the translators did back then, because of centuries of study. They made some translation errors that we wouldn’t make today.

 

[Hail_Linus]

Yes, these are all pretty close to what I had; I’m sorry you find it absurd, but that’s what the text says–actually, I just did my own on the fly translation, so I wasn’t trying to use any one translation in particular.

Do you think God “tries” to do anything? Don’t you think God “sought to kill him” is more appropriate translation from the Hebrew text than God “tried to kill him.” It seems you can read Hebrew and perhaps a literal translation would be “tried” but that just does not make sense theologically to me so I think the Protestant translators that made the RSV captured the spirit of the text better with God “sought to kill him”. * Please note, I am not asking this as a Catholic to a non-Catholic, I am asking it as one Christian to another.*

My question was whether the Catholic translators chose to translate the Hebrew text or Septuagint text–and they apparently chose the Hebrew text.

There is no dogma about this. Catholicism has always been interested in knowledge. Some Catholic translations are from the Hebrew some are from the Greek and some are from the later Latin Vulgate. It is valuable to look at scripture from all translations. In fact in 1943 Pope Pius XII issued an encyclical letter, Divino Afflante Spiritu, which encouraged Roman Catholics to translate the Scriptures from the original Hebrew and Greek, rather than from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate.

We actually know more about some aspects of Biblical Hebrew now than the translators did back then, because of centuries of study. They made some translation errors that we wouldn’t make today.

This impossible to prove and frankly I find it impossible that any scholar today could be as skilled as those that translated the Septuagint. The translators of the Septuagint had more information about the languages at that time period than any scholar today could possibly have. Additionally, translators of the Septuagint were probably bi-lingual. Bi-lingual translators are superior. Let me clarify that when I say bi-lingual I mean person that learned both languages as a child. I am bi-lingual as far back as I can remember and I can assure you that people that learn a second language as an adult will never be able to translate at the level of accuracy of a true bi-lingual person.

But I am open-minded and would love to learn why modern scholars have better translation skills. I would be grateful if you could point me in the direction of this information.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Do you think God “tries” to do anything? Don’t you think God “sought to kill him” is more appropriate translation from the Hebrew text than God “tried to kill him.” It seems you can read Hebrew and perhaps a literal translation would be “tried” but that just does not make sense theologically to me so I think the Protestant translators that made the RSV captured the spirit of the text better with God “sought to kill him”. * Please note, I am not asking this as a Catholic to a non-Catholic, I am asking it as one Christian to another.*

Sure you can say “sought” to kill him; yes, it’s better. But he didn’t kill him; Yahweh either wasn’t successful or changed his mind.

There is no dogma about this. Catholicism has always been interested in knowledge. Some Catholic translations are from the Hebrew some are from the Greek and some are from the later Latin Vulgate. It is valuable to look at scripture from all translations. In fact in 1943 Pope Pius XII issued an encyclical letter, Divino Afflante Spiritu, which encouraged Roman Catholics to translate the Scriptures from the original Hebrew and Greek, rather than from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate.

I have seen people claim here CAF that “Catholics follow the Septuagint” so I was curious whether this was actually true.

This impossible to prove and frankly I find it impossible that any scholar today could be as skilled as those that translated the Septuagint. The translators of the Septuagint had more information about the languages at that time period than any scholar today could possibly have. Additionally, translators of the Septuagint were probably bi-lingual. Bi-lingual translators are superior. Let me clarify that when I say bi-lingual I mean person that learned both languages as a child. I am bi-lingual as far back as I can remember and I can assure you that people that learn a second language as an adult will never be able to translate at the level of accuracy of a true bi-lingual person.

But I am open-minded and would love to learn why modern scholars have better translation skills. I would be grateful if you could point me in the direction of this information.

I think a good book at an introductory level would be “Invitation to the Septuagint”; esp. see Chapter 4. But the whole book is a good introduction to the various difficulties the Septuagint presents.

Once you start to really study these texts, the translation mistakes and problems really begin to stand out. As a simple example, see the Latin text of Gen 2:7: “de ligno autem scientiae boni et mali ne comedas in quocumque enim die comederis ex eo morte morieris.” Through the use of “morte morieris” it’s clear that the translator (Jerome or whoever) doesn’t understand a special use of two consecutive Hebrew verbs (an infinitive absolute followed by a finite verb) and instead comes up with something like “you will die the death” which is at best, a poor translation and at worst, is simply an error. If a student did this on an exam, I would count off.

We now have the benefit of centuries of grammars, discovery of cognate languages, and all kinds of linguistic analysis (including comparative Semitics) and so we simply understand some things much better now than they did back then.

 

[mwok]

Septuagint: 70 scribes writing down the Scriptures from memory(Tradition)
Mesoretic Text: Rabbis transcribing word for word from previous texts(Sola Scriptura)

 

[Hail_Linus]

Sure you can say “sought” to kill him; yes, it’s better. But he didn’t kill him; Yahweh either wasn’t successful or changed his mind.

What I am trying to say is that not only is “sought” to kill him better, “tried” to kill is a blasphemous view for Christian. If God was not “successful” then he failed. As a Christian I do not feel it is right to interpret a text in a manner that implies that God failed.

I have seen people claim here CAF that “Catholics follow the Septuagint” so I was curious whether this was actually true.

Despite all the Dogmas and discipline we have, we are very free to use which ever translation we wish.

I think a good book at an introductory level would be “Invitation to the Septuagint”; esp. see Chapter 4. But the whole book is a good introduction to the various difficulties the Septuagint presents.

Once you start to really study these texts, the translation mistakes and problems really begin to stand out. As a simple example, see the Latin text of Gen 2:7: “de ligno autem scientiae boni et mali ne comedas in quocumque enim die comederis ex eo morte morieris.” Through the use of “morte morieris” it’s clear that the translator (Jerome or whoever) doesn’t understand a special use of two consecutive Hebrew verbs (an infinitive absolute followed by a finite verb) and instead comes up with something like “you will die the death” which is at best, a poor translation and at worst, is simply an error. If a student did this on an exam, I would count off.

We now have the benefit of centuries of grammars, discovery of cognate languages, and all kinds of linguistic analysis (including comparative Semitics) and so we simply understand some things much better now than they did back then.

I understand what you are saying here and I will look into it. But do agree that people from that time period naturally bi-lingual would have certain abilities that modern scholars can’t possibly understand. There may be some truth in what you are saying but it also has to be acknowledged that a person from that time period that is naturally bi-lingual would have certain skills that no scholar today can have? I stated before, as a naturally bi-lingual person, I often have to drastically change a sentence while translating because my naturally familiarity with both languages gives me the ability to see that a literal translation would make no sense or may even convey the writer’s intent. As far as I know (I could be wrong) there are no people in modern times that speak both Greek and Hebrew since childhood.

There of course is the real possibility that different versions of the Hebrew Texts were used for the Septuagint.

BTW, how do you feel about the verses of the Gospel of John concerning the Adulterous Woman in 7:53-8:11. Most Scholars believed they were a later addition? Do you believe the verses should be ignored? Or how about Mark 16:9-20? I am just interested in your opinion?

I don’t mean to sound confrontational. I actually find your views very interesting. I am always interested in hearing rational arguments.

 

[Hail_Linus]

So what about cases where the Septuagint text is shorter, as is the case in Jeremiah? Then do Catholics follow the Hebrew Text or the Septuagint? Is the default always to choose the longest text?

Below is a link to an article concerning the bokk of Jeremiah from the Folio Bulletin of the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Society of the Claremont School of Theology. The article is written by Emanuel Tov, Professor in the Department of Bible at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, corresponding to Fellow of the British Academy (FBA), since 2006.

In the article he basically says his study of the book of Jeremiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls make him conclude the shorter version in the LXX is a translation of an earlier Hebrew version of the text and the extra verses in the MT are later additions.

The link to the article is abmc.org/PDFs/Folio_Vol_22_No_2.pdf

I still haven’t found any official Catholic position.