Another Greek/Hebrew Bible Question, and a Latin Bible question

[arago_sama]

So I few days ago I had asked about those who read the Bible in Greek or Hebrew. I downloaded some podcasts (thanks arjuna27) and probably after finals and the MCAT I'm taking in June, I will begin studying Greek and Hebrew. I feel fairly confident that I can get a lot out of self-study considering I'm a Linguistics major and have studied a few other

Comments

Part I - Families of Manuscripts

[catholic_heart]

Your question actually gets to the root of why there is a difference between the Catholic and Protestant Old Testaments. The Masoretic Texts are those OT books which were written only in Hebrew. There are seven books, and parts of a few others, in the Old Testament which are not found in the Masoretic Texts. These books are found in the Septuagint Old Testament, the Greek translation, and most of these books were written originally in Greek (although it seems that Sirach or Ecclesiasticus was actually written in Hebrew and translated early on into Greek). At some point these books believed to have been written in Greek were removed from the Jewish canon, and Martin Luther came along some time after and decided they should be removed from the Christian canon, as well. It is important to note, I think, that in many cases the Septuagint (LXX) manuscripts older than those the Masoretic Texts relied upon. It is likely that both Mark and Luke only knew the LXX Bible, and it was widely used in Jesus' and by Jews in the centuries before

Re: Part I - Families of Manuscripts

[triphicus]

It is important to note, I think, that in many cases the Septuagint (LXX) manuscripts older than those the Masoretic Texts relied upon. It is likely that both Mark and Luke only knew the LXX Bible, and it was widely used in Jesus' and by Jews in the centuries before and after him.
Do you know of any specific places where they quoted from something that isn't actually found in the (non-Catholic) canon?

Re: Part I - Families of Manuscripts

[catholic_heart]

Well, it's not correct to refer to the LXX as the Catholic canon. The LXX is the Old Testament translated into Greek by Jews centuries before Jesus' time. Because so many Jews spoke Greek either primarily or exclusively, due to the influence of the expansion of Alexander, at one point it was as many as 50 percent of all Jews were Greek speaking. Since Luke was likely a Syrian from Antioch, he would have certainly used the LXX instead of a Hebrew edition of the Jewish Scriptures. In addition, the prologue to Luke is written in Septuagint Greek, which is slightly discernible from the Koine Greek used throughout the NT. Outside of Palestine, and in some cases even within Palestine, most Jews were reading the LXX in Jesus time and at the time of the writing of the Gospels, since Greek was the common language. So it is with Mark, who was likely not a Palestinian Jew, would have almost certainly relied upon the LXX. There are other small indications in Mark that he used the LXX, such as in Mark 1:2, "Behold, I send my messenger."

Re: Part I - Families of Manuscripts

[triphicus]

haha, yeah I know what the Septuagint is (one would hope at least, seeing that I translate from it on a daily basis). I was just trying to be polite by not referring to the books as apocrypha. But I suppose I will reframe the question that way.

Part II - moving on to your question

[catholic_heart]

The Textus Receptus is drawn from this last family of manuscripts. Erasmus in 1516 published a Greek NT based on these Byzantine manuscripts, and his NT became eventually known as the Textus Receptus. This was then used to make the first vernacular translations of the NT, including the Authorized or King James Version. The Textus Receptus, unfortunately, has some problems because Erasmus drew heavily on the 12th and 13th century mss. of the Byzantine texts, and he had available none of the papyri and great codices which in addition to these families of manuscripts provide valuable textual support. As a result, the translations which rely on the Textus Receptus tend to be the least reliable as far as literal translations. An example of this can be found in the addition of the doxology at the end of Matthew's form of the Lord's Prayer (for thine is the kingdom, the power...), which is found in none of the earlier manuscripts and is a clear addition to a later Byzantine liturgical edition

Re: Part II - moving on to your question

[arago_sama]

Thanks! I knew you'd come to the rescue.

Re: Part II - moving on to your question

[catholic_heart]

A lot of that info came from the book I mentioned, Raymond E. Brown's Introduction to the New Testament. I think it is a book right up your alley. I strongly recommend it, especially for where you are right now in terms of diving more deeply into Scripture. There is another excellent book by Lawrence Boadt called Reading the Old Testament. I think you'll find both of them very helpful to deepening your comprehension of Scripture. I'm working through the Boadt book now.

[catholic_heart]

Also, this is a great site, and it has free software you can download which allows you to install the Bible in several languages, including the Greek and Hebrew and several English translations, plus the Original and New Vulgate (Latin), several translations of other languages, including French, Italian, German, and some others. It's put out by the Vatican, so it's mostly Catholic translations. The software also allows you to reference Scripture passages with some of the writings of the Church fathers. It's very awesome software, and totally searchable, and includes a few other neat features.

[triphicus]

I wouldn't buy an NT of the Textus Receptus. It is extremely limited (for various reasons, none of which I have the time to go into now. But if you are really curious, you can look online, or I can go into it in brief for you tomorrow). Anyway, you should def. go with this instead: http://www.amazon.com/Biblia-Utriusque-Testamenti-Editio-Hebraica/dp/1598561790/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207632492&sr=8-1

It doesn't have the English, but do you really need it?

[napoleonofnerds]

First off: Everything arjuna said is 100% accurate and believe what he tells you.

The Latin Vulgate is of greater importance to historians than to theologians these days - it was typical in Western Europe and so it is the filter of a lot of religious thinking, and if you are studying, say Thomas Aquinas, it's sometimes helpful to see what the Vulgate says to get a grip on what he's talking about. However, the number of people doing an in depth study of Saint Thomas or someone like him in the original Latin with enough concern that they want to see the version of the bible he used is fairly small, even among the Dominican Order.

Currently, Latin biblical editions are used in the standard versions of Catholic liturgies (even though most of these are in the vernacular) and to quote the bible in an intelligent sounding way, often inexplicably done by people who want tattoos in Latin, of which there are no shortage if livejournal's latin community is any sort of representative sample.

[catholic_heart]

I'm going to get a Tolle Lege tattoo on my chest, no doubt :P

[napoleonofnerds]

As long as you keep it in your habit.