10-08-2008, 06:20 PM
Shlama Akhi Rafa,
No, I would not say it is a reason not to read the Vulgate. I think the Vulgate is very important in the overall field of biblical studies. I recommend reading it. I just don't recommend givingit ultimate authority. That's another question.
And Jerome's familarity with the Peshitta (if such was the case) has nothing to do with his ability to make a contradictory reading. He could just as easily admit knowing the reading and disregard it as spurious.
Both these considerations however are not my main point. We were talking about Lamsa and allowing a reading in base text as if it were in the original Eastern Peshitta. It is NOT. Again, study ALL variants in ALL languages. Just don't put it in BASE TEXT.
And also, be true to source text. If I were translating the Vulgate then reagrdless as to how I felt about a reading, if it were in the original Latin that is what I would go with. Similarly when translating Peshitta, Lamsa in my view should have been more forthcoming in this instance (or Harper Collins, take your pick) as to what constitutes source text and what doesn't. The reader, of course, is free to decide for themselves which reading they prefer, but there should be NO DOUBT where all the candidate readings come from.
But also in Lamsa's defense is a fact that most Bibles done in his era did not have this need for precision for their believers in churches throughout the US and Europe. The textual experts published their academic papers (generally speaking) and the Bible companies just put out texts with limited footnotes and supplemental materials. The exception would be critical editions in Greek or Hebrew or whatever, or Dead Sea Scrolls research. The overall trend though that I saw in Western Christianity from this time was sort of saying, "just give me THE ONE TEXT in basic English and don't make me worry about how this or that mss reads".
Now, I admit I have not done a precise scientific survey on the above. I do however have more than 100 versions of the Bible from diverse periods on my bookshelves and most of them are Christian-based. I really don't see a strong trending to things like Thompson Chains and full concordances COUPLED WITH THE TEXTS and detailed mss footnotes until about the early 1960's. Prior to that, when Lamsa was doing his work, the other trends that I mentioned seem to hold sway. That's my opinion, not to take anything away from Lamsa himself.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
No, I would not say it is a reason not to read the Vulgate. I think the Vulgate is very important in the overall field of biblical studies. I recommend reading it. I just don't recommend givingit ultimate authority. That's another question.
And Jerome's familarity with the Peshitta (if such was the case) has nothing to do with his ability to make a contradictory reading. He could just as easily admit knowing the reading and disregard it as spurious.
Both these considerations however are not my main point. We were talking about Lamsa and allowing a reading in base text as if it were in the original Eastern Peshitta. It is NOT. Again, study ALL variants in ALL languages. Just don't put it in BASE TEXT.
And also, be true to source text. If I were translating the Vulgate then reagrdless as to how I felt about a reading, if it were in the original Latin that is what I would go with. Similarly when translating Peshitta, Lamsa in my view should have been more forthcoming in this instance (or Harper Collins, take your pick) as to what constitutes source text and what doesn't. The reader, of course, is free to decide for themselves which reading they prefer, but there should be NO DOUBT where all the candidate readings come from.
But also in Lamsa's defense is a fact that most Bibles done in his era did not have this need for precision for their believers in churches throughout the US and Europe. The textual experts published their academic papers (generally speaking) and the Bible companies just put out texts with limited footnotes and supplemental materials. The exception would be critical editions in Greek or Hebrew or whatever, or Dead Sea Scrolls research. The overall trend though that I saw in Western Christianity from this time was sort of saying, "just give me THE ONE TEXT in basic English and don't make me worry about how this or that mss reads".
Now, I admit I have not done a precise scientific survey on the above. I do however have more than 100 versions of the Bible from diverse periods on my bookshelves and most of them are Christian-based. I really don't see a strong trending to things like Thompson Chains and full concordances COUPLED WITH THE TEXTS and detailed mss footnotes until about the early 1960's. Prior to that, when Lamsa was doing his work, the other trends that I mentioned seem to hold sway. That's my opinion, not to take anything away from Lamsa himself.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth