SueAnn, I am sorry I misunderstood you. When you said that you took it that the Babylonian text is the older of the two, for some reason I thought "the two" referred the Babylonian and Egyptian texts. I must read more carefully.
That's okay; even I had to think about it a few minutes before I could offer a rationale for my comment.
I read your post earlier and took some time to read about Jerome. Wikipedia looks like a site I'll be going back to. I have not taken the time to go to the site you suggested in a most recent post. sorry...so many things to read and so little time. I spent some time reviewing a 200+ page manuscript that my SDA bio bro recently wrote, to see what his SDA perspective was on Jerome (no index in his pre-published manuscript) yet, there was no reference (that I could see as I reviewed the book) to Jerome. However, he had plenty to say about other noteworthy translators...(more on his translation perspectives in future posts)
Jerome claimed that his Hebrew manuscript (the Babylonian type) was much superior to the Septuagint. Christians had been puzzled that Jesus words "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'Out of his belly will flow rivers of living water." [John 7:38] could not be found in the Septuagint, but Jerome claimed that he had found the words in the Hebrew manuscript which he used. However, his translation of the Hebrew manuscript he used, the Vulgate, does not contain the words. Did Jerome lie in order to promote his claim that his Hebrew manuscript was superior to the Septuagint? It appears so.
Jerome also made the astonishing claim that Jesus and his disciples never quoted from the Septuagint!
Wikipedia has this to say about Jerome: "He began in 382 by correcting the existing Latin language version of the New Testament, commonly referred to as the Vetus Latina. By 390 he turned to the Hebrew Bible,
having previously translated portions from the Septuagint. (italics added by SueAnn)
Paidion, would you agree with this Wikipedia statement that Jerome had translated portions from the Septuagint? If he really did that, then he had detailed, intimate knowledge of the Septuagint.
I can't figure him out. It saddens me to think that texts have been mis-translated and tampered with. I consider it sufficient that God knew we would be confused (I am anyway). Actually, this coincides with a previously held opinion of mine, that I have about God's mysteries and their relationship to His desire that all men live in unity as one. My opinion or musing has been that, perhaps God knew we humans would be deluged with a myriad of wrong translations, perspectives, doctrines and dogmas. Perhaps He is watching our ability (only through His Spirit) to love one another in spite of our differences! What if we are supposed to "pass the test" of living in unity, by love, with honestly dismayed believers of wrong doctrine? What if God's main goal is that we love one another, not get the correct theology? (Having said that, I never would discourage efforts to ascertain the correct translation and subsequently ascribe to its perfect doctrine, principles and tenants!)
On Wikipedia, under "Bible Translations" I found the following quote: "The Bible has been translated into many languages from the biblical languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The very first translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek was the Septuagint (LXX), which later became the accepted text of the Old Testament in the church and the basis of its canon. The Latin Vulgate by Jerome was based upon the Hebrew for those books of the Bible preserved in the Jewish canon (as reflected in the masoretic text), and on the Greek text for the deuterocanonical books."
Wikipedia continues, "Other ancient Jewish translations, such as the Aramaic Targums, conform closely to masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible, and all medieval and modern Jewish translations are based upon the same.
Christian translations also tend to be based upon the Hebrew, though some denominations prefer the Septuagint (or may cite variant readings from both)." (Italics added by SueAnn)
Questions: To confirm my correct understanding, "the Septuagint" referred to in italics above, is the Egyptian text, right? If so, what, as the Wikipedia quote asserts, "denominations prefer the Septuagint"? In other words, what denominations prefer the Egyptian text?
Change of subject: I went back to your initial post of this thread to re-read it and see if I could offer some kind of an intelligent reply.
Nope. Not yet, but I'm working on it! I can say this. Now, I finally have a hint of understanding what you meant by the post title. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think "late textual tradition" would be translations from the Babylonian text, having come from the Masoretic text. "Early manuscripts" would be translations from the Septuagint, having come from the Egyptian text.