Inconsistencies in the Vulgate?

[TradGranny]

Here's a few examples of what I'm talking about:


Genesis 3:15. St. Jerome translated the prophecy as "she shall crush they head" whereas the original Hebrew (and I think the Septuagint) said "he", not "she". (I'm not saying that St. Jerome's translation is theologically wrong or anything... only that it doesn't reflect the original text.)

The word was actually gender neutral.

[aquinas138]

Here's a few examples of what I'm talking about:


Genesis 3:15. St. Jerome translated the prophecy as "she shall crush they head" whereas the original Hebrew (and I think the Septuagint) said "he", not "she". (I'm not saying that St. Jerome's translation is theologically wrong or anything... only that it doesn't reflect the original text.)

The word was actually gender neutral.

No, the Hebrew uses a masculine pronoun (????) — Semitic languages have no neuter gender. The word for "seed" is masculine, which is what the pronoun is referring to; the Syriac Peshitta, whose OT is a couple of centuries older than the Vulgate, likewise uses masculine (???) for the same reason. The Septuagint uses "he" (?????), which seems to me a clearly Messianic reading because the Greek word for "seed" (??????) is neuter, and one would expect a pronoun reference to the word to also be neuter.

Some Old Latin versions read "she," so the Vulgate reading has precedents within the Latin tradition, but the Latin "she" is alone among the ancient versions in this regard (though there are a few quotations here and there). If there were a minority of Greek texts or Coptic or something that also read "she," there might be more of an argument for it. But as it stands, the Latin reading has to be regarded as an anomaly, and in fact an error. A very old error, but an error nonetheless.

However, it should be emphasized that while this is an error in translation, it is not a fatal one for doctrine. Even the most maximalist Marian devotion would assert that the Virgin crushes Satan's head by the power of Christ — any power, authority, holiness, etc., comes from Him, so while the Latin reading seems prophetical with respect to the Virgin, it doesn't fundamentally say something terribly different than the other versions.

[King Wenceslas]

So the Latin Vulgate is riddled with errors?

So the church that is based on "Holy" Scripture and Tradition is now left with only Tradition.

Wow. What a revelation.

When "supposedly" Christ said when he returns will he find any faith is coming true.

Changing she to he in Genesis was one of the very first things the "reformers" did after Vatican II. They were right???????

Well smack me down. The changes after Vatican II were not all wrong. Now us Trads are going to have to start saying: LONG LIVE VATICAN II

[King Wenceslas]

Which opens the door to you know who.

August 14, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – A Vatican consultant who leads the Canadian Catholic media organization Salt and Light Television has issued a statement publicly recognizing and defending that Pope Francis "breaks Catholic traditions whenever he wants" and that he rules by his own personal authority, rather than the authority of the Scripture and tradition of the Catholic Church.

According to Salt and Light CEO Fr. Thomas Rosica, "Pope Francis breaks Catholic traditions whenever he wants because he is 'free from disordered attachments.'"

"Our Church has indeed entered a new phase," writes Rosica. "With the advent of this first Jesuit pope, it is openly ruled by an individual rather than by the authority of Scripture alone or even its own dictates of tradition plus Scripture."

According to Rosica, Pope Francis has a "commitment to a 'conversion' of the papacy as well as the entire church."

Now since Trads have as of late attacked Fatima, they now are questioned Scripture. It seems the ones in the Vatican are doing the same thing as you will notice above. They rule now by the individual and NOT by Scripture. Good show Trads you are now marching in step with the Vatican.

[aquinas138]

So the Latin Vulgate is riddled with errors?

So the church that is based on "Holy" Scripture and Tradition is now left with only Tradition.

Wow. What a revelation.

When "supposedly" Christ said when he returns will he find any faith is coming true.

Changing she to he in Genesis was one of the very first things the "reformers" did after Vatican II. They were right???????

Well smack me down. The changes after Vatican II were not all wrong. Now us Trads are going to have to start saying: LONG LIVE VATICAN II

"Riddled" with errors is not at all what I said. The Vulgate has some errors of translation, but nothing that would change doctrine, and certainly nothing that would validate the new religion.

[Gardener]

I see good King Wenceslas has never read the letters exchanged between Sts. Augustine and Jerome. 

[St.Justin]

I see good King Wenceslas has never read the letters exchanged between Sts. Augustine and Jerome. 

I have and I still think he is on to something. Just because one document is older than the other doesn't make the older one correct. Unless you have the original you will never know.

[aquinas138]

I see good King Wenceslas has never read the letters exchanged between Sts. Augustine and Jerome. 

I have and I still think he is on to something. Just because one document is older than the other doesn't make the older one correct. Unless you have the original you will never know.

Yes, but it's not just one document: it's every other ancient version of Genesis. Is it possible the Vulgate is correct against all the others. Possible, but it doesn't seem likely.

[St.Justin]

I see good King Wenceslas has never read the letters exchanged between Sts. Augustine and Jerome. 

I have and I still think he is on to something. Just because one document is older than the other doesn't make the older one correct. Unless you have the original you will never know.

Yes, but it's not just one document: it's every other ancient version of Genesis. Is it possible the Vulgate is correct against all the others. Possible, but it doesn't seem likely.

Anything is possible! As with Jamnia, it is sure funny that all of this smarts only occurred after 1950 and it all started with the modernist to aid the ecumenical movement. "Why can't we all just get along?"

[Kreuzritter]

I see good King Wenceslas has never read the letters exchanged between Sts. Augustine and Jerome. 

I have and I still think he is on to something. Just because one document is older than the other doesn't make the older one correct. Unless you have the original you will never know.

Yes, but it's not just one document: it's every other ancient version of Genesis. Is it possible the Vulgate is correct against all the others. Possible, but it doesn't seem likely.

Anything is possible! As with Jamnia, it is sure funny that all of this smarts only occurred after 1950 and it all started with the modernist to aid the ecumenical movement. "Why can't we all just get along?"

So you would consider a council of Christ-rejecting rabbis to carry some authority but think there's some conspiracy behind dismissing the existence of this council that nobody had ever heard of before a German Jew conjectured it in 1871?

Huh? Am I missing something?

[Xavier]

We discussed Gen 3:15 in the language forum here. Many interpreters of the Hebrew themselves including Maimonides read "She". "Moses Maimonides writes, which is indeed amazing, 'But what must be admired most of all, is that the serpent is joined with Eve, that is, its seed with her seed, its head with her heel; that she (Eve) should conquer it (the serpent) in the head" and "So evidently in Maimonides day there were still some uncorrupted Hebrew texts available. À Lapide adds that even in his day there were two Hebrew codices in the Vatican library that read "she" (according to Kennicott numbers 227 and 239), and another in the Bernard de Rossi library. Also in the same library was an Onkelosi Codex [translation from the Hebrew into Aramaic] which read "she." 8 See http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/coredemptrix.html

"There is no doubt that the Hebrew text, being the original text, deserves, when considered by itself, to be preferred to all the versions; but the learned generally agree in saying that the original Hebrew is no longer perfectly exact. Indeed, Salmeron, Moririus, and others, teach that the Jews have altered it out of hatred for Christianity; many, with Bellarmine, think that many errors crept in through ignorance, or by the negligence of copyists. It should especially be remarked that after the fifth century, the Jewish doctors called Massoretes have added to the Hebrew text signs never before seen, that is points, which have taken the place of vowels, and that became the occasion of numerous equivocations and discordant interpretations.

"Superiority and Authenticity of the Vulgate

"The Council of Trent, therefore, did not wish to do for the Hebrew text what it did for the Latin text of the Vulgate: for the latter it declared authentic by presenting it as exempt from all error, at least in what concerns the faith and moral precepts. Hence in his dissertation on the transmission of the Holy Scriptures, Xavier Matthei concludes that, there being given no-matter-what Hebrew passage or text, and the Vulgate not agreeing with it, one should keep the Vulgate. 'Not,' he adds, 'that this version is more authentic than the Hebrew text, but because it may be believed , on the one hand, that the passage in question is no longer to be found in the Hebrew as it was there primitively; on the other hand, that this primitive text is found exactly reproduced in the Vulgate - the only version that has merited to be approved by the Church."

There are more than 27,500 verses in the Holy Bible. It is certain that the Vulgate is at least 99.99% pure, if not 100%. The fact of the Church's approval, on the basis of which we come to know the canon of Scripture and receive the whole inspired text itself, makes this plain. It is not, however, to be inferred that other ancient versions (the Peshitta, Septuagint, even the Vetus Latina etc) are of no value, but that the Vulgate is the one most directly approved by the Church - and therefore Gen 3:15 should be read, She will crush ...

[St.Justin]

https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/00-introduction/text/articles/newman-canonjamnia-wtj.pdf

"The canon was therefore completed between 100 B.C. and  A. D. 100, and the so-called synod held at Jamnia . . . apparently made some contribution to the process. Later disputes about individual books made no change in the canon."

"Alice Parmelee, in her popular-level Guidebook to the Bible,  speaks of the Writings as not being "clearly defined" until "the Council of Jamnia drew up a defi
nite list of the sacred Scriptures.  Going into more detail, she says: It was at Jamnia in the famous school of Johanan ben Zakkai that the council met about A.
D. 90 to decide which books  belonged to the canon. Pointing, no doubt, to the actual rolls brought from the Temple, the scribes and learned men of the 
council argued the merits of the various books. At length,  they established the Hebrew canon in which the Writings were included, but the Apocrypha was left out."

"Even the Encyclopaedia Britannica sounds a rather certain note on this subject: After the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans (A.D. 70) Jamnia became the home of the Great Sanhedrin. A meeting of Rabbis held there c. A.D. 100 discussed and settled the final canon of the Old Testament.
Somewhat more cautiously: The name canon may properly be applied to the books that seem to have been adopted by the assembly of rabbis at 
Jamnia about A.D. 90 or 100 under the leadership of Rabbi  Akiba. Until then, apparently, the status of Song of Solomon and of Ecclesiastes remained
doubtful, but at Jamnia they were definitely included in the canon . . . Some of the Hagiographa (including apparently Daniel) were still in dispute 
until the assembly at Jamnia"

We must remember that with the destruction of the Temple and the entire Holyland everything was destroyed including the Temple Scrolls. ( I believe this is why the scrolls at Qumran were hidden in order to protect them from this destruction). In any case there was a necessity to gather the holy works back together and this is what happened at Jamnia. One of the big problems they had was to find these works in Hebrew which is the only language that is considered Sacred by the Jews. this is part of the reason that there are some books left out  and parts of others missing from what has come down to us as the Masoretic text.

No the "Council of Jamnia" was not a "Council" in the sense we use the term today but it never the less occured, call it what you want, but it was real.

After the temple was destroyed in Jerusalem in 70 CE, a noted Hillelite Rabbi – Yohanan ben Zakkai – relocated to the city of Jamnia and founded a Jewish school there.
Jamnia was also the home of the Sanhedrin (on two occasions)
It is believed that this school was the foundation for Rabbinic Judaism.
It attracted Jews who escaped the tragedy of Jerusalem and were noted scholars.
They, in turn, raised another generation of gifted individuals.
This school gathered and affirmed the past traditions while also sowing the seeds for future progress.
It provided a place for the study of Midrash, Mishnah, Talmud, and Aggadah. Systematic study and debate were the order of the day.

[Kreuzritter]

No, it didn't occur, and quoting old sources all just repeating the same German Jew's story or noting there was a some school there and debate in texts over canon doesn't demonstrate that it did.

But what's most curious is the significance you place upon the authority of a group of Christ-denying late 1st Century Jews practising and teaching a false religion.

[St.Justin]

No, it didn't occur, and quoting old sources all just repeating the same German Jew's story or noting there was a some school there and debate in texts over canon doesn't demonstrate that it did.

But what's most curious is the significance you place upon the authority of a group of Christ-denying late 1st Century Jews practising and teaching a false religion.

Of course it occured.
I give them no authority other than what they held over the Jews of the time. It certainly sounds like you need to do more research. That the writings were destroyed is an historical fact. That someone had to recollect what they could find is a fact.  Josephus and many other early writers attest to these facts. What other group had the authority over Judaism at the time than the Sanhedrian and where was their base? Jamnia. I don't care what the modernist claim the facts are very clear as are the reasons to deny it.

[Gardener]

No, it didn't occur, and quoting old sources all just repeating the same German Jew's story or noting there was a some school there and debate in texts over canon doesn't demonstrate that it did.

But what's most curious is the significance you place upon the authority of a group of Christ-denying late 1st Century Jews practising and teaching a false religion.

Of course it occured.
I give them no authority other than what they held over the Jews of the time. It certainly sounds like you need to do more research. That the writings were destroyed is an historical fact. That someone had to recollect what they could find is a fact.  Josephus and many other early writers attest to these facts. What other group had the authority over Judaism at the time than the Sanhedrian and where was their base? Jamnia. I don't care what the modernist claim the facts are very clear as are the reasons to deny it.

What "modernist" reason would there be to deny Jamnia?

What "Traditional" reason would there be to affirm it?

Jamnia, from a historical scholarly perspective, is an anomaly. It's like the spontaneous generation of scientific thought around the same time: a bunch of bullshit.