![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I'm still awaiting an example of where the Nova's spelling deviates from the Clementina's. I believe that the comment in the article regarding the Nova's spelling reform is false, and I plan to delete it soon unless someone convinces me I'm wrong. In my experience, the spelling in these two translation differs only where their source documents differ (e.g. Thobis for Tobias, which has nothing to do with Classical versus renaissance spelling).
Rob, 11 Mar 2006
Re different versions of the Vulgate produced by Jerome, I believe that this actually refers to different versions of the Psalter, and not the Vulgate as a whole. The text misleadingly infers that the whole of the Old Testament was thus translated. Can anyone give me a reference for the startling assertion that there were Romana, Gallicana, Hispana translations made by Jerome?
-Rob, 27 Jan 2006
I went ahead and made the change 8 March 2006.
Somebody said that something should be said about the way some books or portions of books were marked doubtful and put in separate sections because they were only found in the Greek, and how this later paved the way for Protestants to see them as Apocrypha and completely excise them from the Bible.
They were "excised" because, simply, they never belonged there in the first place. Jerome knew that the Jewish scribes had never considered these books to be part of their canon of Scripture, and for that reason he put them in separate sections. So did the Jewish historian Josephus. Frankly, in many cases all you have to do is to read them and it's clear they're not of the same calibre as the canonical books. Read the additions to Daniel, for example, or the additions to Esther. The canonical book of Esther is a beautiful, if enigmatic, story. The fact that God's name is never mentioned is significant and shows that even though we can't always see Him, He's always working in the affairs of His people.
The apocryphal additions to Esther, on the other hand, start right out by mentioning God and explaining exactly how He was at work. Now, I'm not denying that this information can be useful; nor do any other Protestants I've talked to. It may even be worthy of being considered a commentary on the books. But it's clearly not in the same class.
The latin Vulgate contains books of the Old Testament that Martin Luther would change during the reformation period. Saint Jerome was a translator and was in no position to canonize the books of the bible. His opinion of what books are considered more important than others is just an opinion. Besides he included them as OT and the canon was fixed before the Vulgate at the III Council of Carthage. He can't and couldn't canonize the bible. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint contain the books that Luther rejected. Only post-crucifiction Jewish reform resembles Luther's Old Testament. This is a different Old Testament to that used by the early Christian/Jews and the Apostles who quote from the Septuagint in the NT. [Cpt|Kirk 11:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)]
tooMuchData
08:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheResearchPersona ( talk • contribs)The article states that "The main critical source for the Stuttgart Vulgate is Codex Amiatinus[...]" This puzzles me, as the Stuttgart critical apparatus refers to dozens of manuscripts as well as to several editions, with no one single source, it seems to me, clearly standing apart from the others. Perhaps I am missing something. GBWallenstein 01:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone give me an example of how the Nova Vulgata's spelling is more classical than the Clementina's?
-Rob, 27 Jan 2006
Are we sure that the name Vulgate suggests that it was written in simplified Latin closer to everyday speech? I was under the impression that it simply meant that here was a bible written not in the educated languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek — but in Latin, the language of the people. (Then, of course, this became ironically fossilized until the 20th century in the Catholic church.) Doops 04:55, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
As a Jew, I was barely aware before of greatly different versions in the Christian Bible. I'm curious which one is closest to the true, original, Hebrew... Especially when you have a difference like whether or not Methuselah survived the flood. I mean, I don't care how it was translated, into Latin or Greek - read the Hebrew, according to that version, surely it's relatively clear whether he lived or died...
(not a comment on this article, as if it needed changing or anything, just a comment in general)
tooMuchData
05:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)"...the elegant Ciceronian Latin of which Jerome was a master." Even at my level I know that this is not a discriminating Latinist who is writing this. Jerome's flights of purple writing! are they even "Silver age"? Can someone characterize Jerome's Latin more informatively than this blurb? BtW, the influence of the Vulgate, everywhere read aloud in churches, in coarsening Late Latin is an aspect of the Vulgate that hasn't been touched upon here. Or will the Wikipedia nuns crack our knuckles with the ruler for daring? -- Wetman 20:18, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
tooMuchData
05:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)I was under the impression that the Douay-Rheims Bible is the closest English translation to the Vulgate? Am I wrong?
You are correct. The Douay-Rheims is an english translation of the Vulgate. The KJV translators used the Textus Receptus to avoid translating from the Vulgate but it turned out that even Textus Receptus used the Vulgate so lots of Vulgate translations entered the KJV that way, but also the KJV translators referenced the Douay-Rheims. [Cpt|Kirk 22:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)]
Yes, KJV is closest equivalent
The comparison between the KJV and Vulgate, and whether the Douay Rheims (made from the Vulgate) is closer should not be confused. In terms of influence on their respective languages and the people who spoke them (not to mention religious life), yes the KJV and Vulgate are highly comparable. I agree that the Douay Version (and its revision by Challoner, which I may mention drew heavily from the KJV) is the closest translational equivalent of the Latin Vulgate in English. However, in terms of sheer influence and even reverance by its readers, only the KJV measures up to the Vulgate's original paradigm. Even a Catholic (which I was raised) knows what version or at least has heard the version of Psalm 23 which begins "The LORD is my shepherd: I shall not want..." The same cannot be said of the Douay's "The Lord ruleth me: and I shall want nothing..." a literal rendering of the Vulgate's "Dominus regit me: nihil mihi deerit..." posted by User:Simonapro
tooMuchData
05:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheResearchPersona ( talk • contribs)There is an inconsistancy in the Nova Vulgata section. It says Paul VI appointed a commission in 1965 to do for the Vulgate what had been done for the psalter. It later says the psalter was published in 1969. What's the story here? Rwflammang 14:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The source for these inconsistent data seems to be [1], which is a polemical essay directed against the Nova Vulgata. Perusing the essay does not make me confident that it is an accurate source. I think perhaps that removing one or both of the inconsistent statements should be our short term fix. Rwflammang 15:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The following independent clause has been bugging me for a while, and I just now removed it. It's not so much that I think it is wrong, just besides the point. Jerome never showed any inclination for the notion, so widespread today, that the Bible should omit the Apocrypha. In his prologues, he called the Apocrypha non-canonical. But he also called them scriptures, in the very same prologues. He did not consider canonical to be a synonym for scriptural. I'm removing the clause for now because I can't think of good way to make the original editor's point:
The clause implied that Jerome was in favor of removing the Apocrypha from the Vulgate. Rwflammang 15:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I have an issue with the wording "cleansed of the errors..." This presumes that only Jerome's original is "correct", and that any changes made to the text are necessarily corruptions to that purity of correctness. I think this is patently absurd. Don't get me wrong — it's fine to talk about attempting to reconstruct Jerome's original. But it's out of place to imply that it was perfect in any sense. Rocinante9 2006-08-17
I agree. I also think that the S.V. cannot be described as an attempted reconstruction of Jerome's text. In the second preface (which I do not have before me, unfortunately) the editors defend at least one of their readings by saying that the correct reconstruction of a particular verse, concerning which they had been criticized, could hardly be described as a reading at all, since almost no one had ever read it. I'm not sure what the editors were attempting to reconstruct, a majority 6th century Italian text? A collection of readings showing the least Vetus Latina influence? I just can't tell what they were after. Rwflammang 14:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems like an article about the identical content exists and should be merged and redirected here. Anyone agree and/or want to take that task on? Biblia Vulgata-- Andrew c 01:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
There wasn't much in Biblia Vulgata that was lacking in Vulgate. What little I found, I put in just now. Rwflammang 19:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the bizarre misstatement that the Vulgate was the first Christian Bible to use an Old Testament text translated from the Hebrew. The various Syrian Bibles always used a Hebrew-based text (although there was a Syro-Hexaplar version produced in the 7th Century CE). And of course, the Old Testment of the Greek Church has always been the LXX - itself directly translated from the Hebrew before the Christian era. TomHennell 02:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I am puzzled by the para below; especially the firtst and last last sentances, which appear to contradict one another:
I had thought that Jerome undertook a "revision" of selected books of the Old Latin OT (which do not survive) before he left Rome; but that his "translation" of the OT - undertaken in Betlehem, was a totally new project (source Encyclopedia Judaica). I have altered rest of the Old Testament to the rest of the deutrocanonical books, as that is what I think is meant. TomHennell 15:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for the clarification of the terminology - though I would hope that most of that could be put off into another Wiki article, in the belief that point should not be at issue here. Whether or not particular books are regarded as canonical in different Christian traditions, they are certainly regarded as Canonical within the Vulgate as officially promulgated (e.g. in the Council of Trent - albeit that Jerome himself would no doubt have some pretty harsh words in response). I would have thought it was not POV that the Clementine Vulgate presents a protocanon, a deutrocanon, and a residual apocrypha - and that the wider ecclesiastical status of these books should not be an issue for an article about the Vulgate. If the article were discussing the Ethiopic Bible, then the list of protocanon, deuterocanon and apocrypha would look very different - but it isn't.
My question was more concerned with the issue of what we are saying Jerome did (or perhaps claims he had done, as telling the unvarnished truth was not one of his dominant qualities). I think that the revision I proposed of this para corresponds to what I understand as being stated by contributors to this article; but if so, it would appear to duplicate much that is said in the next para - so perhaps they could be conflated. Maybe we should simply list the books that are in the OT of Vulgate manuscripts, but which Jerome did not revise?
regards TomHennell 18:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
tooMuchData
05:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheResearchPersona ( talk • contribs)I have redrafted this para.
Last week, the order of the editions was changed from a roughly chronological one to one that was split primariy into Catholic editions and critical editions. Since then, the lists of editions have been leaking back towards their original chronological order. The Aland edition is now in the catholic section. So is the benedictine edition dispite the fact that it was never "official" (whatever that means) and was most definitely a critical edition. I propose abolishing the whole Catholic vs. critical distinction, I do not see how it is useful, and returning to the chronological order. Rwflammang 17:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with your characterization of the Nova Vulgata Editio as a new version. It is a minor revision of 70 of the 76 books of the Clementine vulgate, following the Benedictine critical edition (which is also the basis for most of the Stuttgart Old Testament). It is a major departure in only three ways, all of which are noted in the article: 1) It follows the Vetus Latina rather than the Vulgate in Thobi and Iudith. 2) The psalms are rather more extensively changed than most of the rest of the text, but are still quite similar to the psalters of older editions. (Just compare the 2nd and 4th columns on of the psalter comparison here.) 3) The three apocrypha are omitted. It is hardly "the Vatican's 20th-century attempt at Latin prose composition". It is a vulgate in much the same sense that earlier revisions were, including Ximenes' and Hentenius' and Sixtus' and Clement's; they all corrected the text to a greater or lesser extent to better accord with the Greek. I'd say its most extreme departure in most of the text is its divergence from the punctuation of the Clementine, which is not something that most people care much about, and at any rate earlier editions also diverged in punctuation.
The term revision has been much abused in English versions of the Bible. Challoner's "revision" was practically a re-write of the Douay bible, as was the confraternity's "revision" of Challoner. The RSV is more than a revision of the KJV, despite its name. But that is most emphatically not the case here.
Rwflammang 16:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Without prejudice to the discussions above, I have proposed an introductory text that clarifies for the uninformed user the need to be aware that three texts circulate widely with the ascription of "Vulgate" Please amend, move or delete if you think this does not help. TomHennell 11:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Wareh says above:
I don't have a problem with your moving of the text at all, in fact, I approve of it. But I do object to your characterization of the NTL as non-critical. Kurt Aland is a very well known critical scholar, and in his preface to NTL, he describes his apparatus as a criticus apparatus. The Nova Vulgata New Testament is a minor revision of earlier critical editions, namely the Benedictine which in turn is dependent on Wordworth and White. A quick glance at the critical apparatus will show you that the text rarely deviates from W&W or from the Stuttgart (spelling and punctuation excepted, obviously). I propose restoring the adjective "critical" to the noun "apparatus", which is a word that hardly makes sense without it. Rwflammang 16:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The article says correctly of the NTL (and I didn't put it in there), "The text is a reprinting of the New Testament of the Nova Vulgata." A "critical edition," in my line of work (Classics professor) and also for Biblical scholars, is an editor's attempt to consistently reconstruct some old text. The Nova Vulgata is written in Latin, but it is not an attempt to reconstruct any old Latin text. Rather, it is a Latin version that chooses to follow an old Latin text (the Vulgate, apart from a few exceptions you mention) only when its editors believe that the Vulgate is in agreement with the (critically edited and interpreted) original (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek) text of the Bible. This is why, in principle, it is not a critical edition of anything. Take its New Testament: open the Novum testamentum graece et latine. On the left, you have a critical edition of an ancient Greek text. The fact that what you see on the right is not a critical edition of an old Latin text is proven by the fact that there is no difference between its meaning and the meaning of the Greek text on the left! Everywhere the old Latin texts disagreed with the results of modern scholarship on the Greek text, the NV "editors" became authors and wrote a Latin translation of the Nestle-Aland text. But a critical edition of a Latin text would not "correct" the old Latin texts in this way. Real critical editions (for example, every one of the hundreds of critical editions of Greek and Latin texts in my office) are revised only when an editor thinks he's printing something closer to the original than what had been printed. The Nova Vulgata's revisions are not of this kind, but (by intentional policy) in every single case (except for passages where the Vetus Latina is followed, which is another issue) are further departures from the reading of any known or knowable Latin original.
There is obviously a larger disagreement here, in that you believe that the Nova Vulgata is an edition of Jerome's Vulgate in any of its books ("a minor revision of 70 of the 76 books of the Clementine vulgate... a major departure in only three ways"). No one who has compared the Nova Vulgata of the prophets, for example, to the Vulgate could make this statement. I have just now literally opened my Stuttgart Vulgate at random. It fell open to Isaiah 64:1/2 (alternate numerations). So here are the two versions:
“ | 1 Sicut ignis succendit sarmenta,
aquam ebullire facit ignis, ut notum facias nomen tuum inimicis tuis, a facie tua gentes turbentur, |
” |
“ | 2 sicut exustio ignis tabescerent aquae arderent igni
ut notum fieret nomen tuum inimicis tuis a facie tua gentes turbarentur. |
” |
The only variant in the Stuttgart's apparatus is atque for aquae. The Stuttgart's apparatus is reliable, and this means that there is no variant in any known source for the Vulgate's text to justify any of the variant readings in the Nova Vulgata. This verse is a good specimen of what I called 20th-century Latin prose composition: the NV editors have used their modern understanding of a non-Latin (Hebrew) original to produce a totally new Latin translation. I picked this example at random, and I don't have time to produce more, but I can guarantee you many more results if you look at texts whose Hebrew originals were as difficult for Jerome as Isaiah. In short, the Nova Vulgata authors did include large bits from the Vulgate, but I am sure they would never claim they were offering up the Vulgate. I'm sure the people who wrote the 20th-century Latin I've just quoted are under no illusion that they're printing Latin words authored by Jerome or anyone else from the pre-20th-century history of Latin literature. The fact that it's a Latin translation of a critical Hebrew text does not make it a critical text, unless you want to say that the NRSV is a "critical edition" of the Bible too.
The article is in manifest error when it says, "Kurt and Barbara Aland published the New Testament of the Vulgate as Novum Testamentum Latine." And any description of any edition (NTL included) of any part of the Nova Vulgata as either a critical edition of a Latin text or as "the Vulgate" is also in manifest error. The Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft may have sown some of this confusion when they printed little rows of variants at the bottom of pages. But these are simply collations to keep track of the variants between the Nova Vulgata (a modern pastiche of old Latin texts and newly authored Latin texts) and other versions. A perfect equivalent would be a copy of the NRSV that collates against the RSV in an apparatus; by the logic you have offered here, such a text would be "a revised, critical edition of the RSV." But no, it's the NRSV, not the RSV. And the Nova Vulgata is a 20th-century pastiche & does not pretend to reconstruct anything earlier in its words (as opposed to in its meanings where it, like all other 20th-c. translations, claims to represent the Hebrew & Greek original with accuracy). Wareh 00:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
tooMuchData
05:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheResearchPersona ( talk • contribs)I've removed the following text from the article. The information in it did not cite sources, and frankly smells like original research. In addition, it was simply too wonkish and slowed down the article while contributing little to it. But because someone obviously spent some serious effort on it, and for the sheer quantity (if not quality) of info it contains, I decided to preserve it here on the talk page for further discussion. Rwflammang 18:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
tooMuchData
05:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheResearchPersona ( talk • contribs)Kudos to editor 203.152.122.129, who contributed much to the readability of this article in one fell swoop. Many thanks! Rwflammang 20:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The question on what "versio vulgata" actually refers to which was asked above didn't seem to get a definitive answer. The contributors danced around the question but didn't clearly answer it or say that the answer is unknown. One of the responders answered that the question of whether the translation can be considered simpler or not cannot be answered definitively, but this wasn't the question that was asked. The question was whether "versio vulgata" refers to language or style. Resources I have read generally say it was because the language was "not Greek" which had been considered the ecclesiastical language at the time. Does anybody know of credible sources that say otherwise?
If not this is a point worth bringing out. Historically it is is interesting that during much of the Roman history the Latin language often took a back seat to Greek for many things in Roman society. The publication of the Vulgate was, in fact, a sign that Latin was making a comeback. -- Mcorazao 21:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Eccl1212 has changed the ISBN of the Stuttgart vulgate from ( ISBN 3-438-05303-9) to ( ISBN 1598561782). What is the qualitative difference between these two editions? They are both described as 4th editions, but Amazon says that the new edition is 39 pages shorter and is issued by Hendrickson Publishers rather than the ABS. See here for [http://www.amazon.com/Biblia-Sacra-Vulgata-R-Gryson/dp/1598561782/ref=sr_11_1/104-0262503-3642309?ie=UTF8&qid=1182787422&sr=11-1 new] and [http://www.amazon.com/Biblia-Sacra-Vulgata-R-Weber/dp/3438053039/ref=sr_11_1/104-0262503-3642309?ie=UTF8&qid=1182787530&sr=11-1 old]. The old edition from the ABS is searchable, the new Hendrickson is not. Rwflammang 16:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I'm still awaiting an example of where the Nova's spelling deviates from the Clementina's. I believe that the comment in the article regarding the Nova's spelling reform is false, and I plan to delete it soon unless someone convinces me I'm wrong. In my experience, the spelling in these two translation differs only where their source documents differ (e.g. Thobis for Tobias, which has nothing to do with Classical versus renaissance spelling).
Rob, 11 Mar 2006
Re different versions of the Vulgate produced by Jerome, I believe that this actually refers to different versions of the Psalter, and not the Vulgate as a whole. The text misleadingly infers that the whole of the Old Testament was thus translated. Can anyone give me a reference for the startling assertion that there were Romana, Gallicana, Hispana translations made by Jerome?
-Rob, 27 Jan 2006
I went ahead and made the change 8 March 2006.
Somebody said that something should be said about the way some books or portions of books were marked doubtful and put in separate sections because they were only found in the Greek, and how this later paved the way for Protestants to see them as Apocrypha and completely excise them from the Bible.
They were "excised" because, simply, they never belonged there in the first place. Jerome knew that the Jewish scribes had never considered these books to be part of their canon of Scripture, and for that reason he put them in separate sections. So did the Jewish historian Josephus. Frankly, in many cases all you have to do is to read them and it's clear they're not of the same calibre as the canonical books. Read the additions to Daniel, for example, or the additions to Esther. The canonical book of Esther is a beautiful, if enigmatic, story. The fact that God's name is never mentioned is significant and shows that even though we can't always see Him, He's always working in the affairs of His people.
The apocryphal additions to Esther, on the other hand, start right out by mentioning God and explaining exactly how He was at work. Now, I'm not denying that this information can be useful; nor do any other Protestants I've talked to. It may even be worthy of being considered a commentary on the books. But it's clearly not in the same class.
The latin Vulgate contains books of the Old Testament that Martin Luther would change during the reformation period. Saint Jerome was a translator and was in no position to canonize the books of the bible. His opinion of what books are considered more important than others is just an opinion. Besides he included them as OT and the canon was fixed before the Vulgate at the III Council of Carthage. He can't and couldn't canonize the bible. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint contain the books that Luther rejected. Only post-crucifiction Jewish reform resembles Luther's Old Testament. This is a different Old Testament to that used by the early Christian/Jews and the Apostles who quote from the Septuagint in the NT. [Cpt|Kirk 11:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)]
tooMuchData
08:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheResearchPersona ( talk • contribs)The article states that "The main critical source for the Stuttgart Vulgate is Codex Amiatinus[...]" This puzzles me, as the Stuttgart critical apparatus refers to dozens of manuscripts as well as to several editions, with no one single source, it seems to me, clearly standing apart from the others. Perhaps I am missing something. GBWallenstein 01:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone give me an example of how the Nova Vulgata's spelling is more classical than the Clementina's?
-Rob, 27 Jan 2006
Are we sure that the name Vulgate suggests that it was written in simplified Latin closer to everyday speech? I was under the impression that it simply meant that here was a bible written not in the educated languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek — but in Latin, the language of the people. (Then, of course, this became ironically fossilized until the 20th century in the Catholic church.) Doops 04:55, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
As a Jew, I was barely aware before of greatly different versions in the Christian Bible. I'm curious which one is closest to the true, original, Hebrew... Especially when you have a difference like whether or not Methuselah survived the flood. I mean, I don't care how it was translated, into Latin or Greek - read the Hebrew, according to that version, surely it's relatively clear whether he lived or died...
(not a comment on this article, as if it needed changing or anything, just a comment in general)
tooMuchData
05:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)"...the elegant Ciceronian Latin of which Jerome was a master." Even at my level I know that this is not a discriminating Latinist who is writing this. Jerome's flights of purple writing! are they even "Silver age"? Can someone characterize Jerome's Latin more informatively than this blurb? BtW, the influence of the Vulgate, everywhere read aloud in churches, in coarsening Late Latin is an aspect of the Vulgate that hasn't been touched upon here. Or will the Wikipedia nuns crack our knuckles with the ruler for daring? -- Wetman 20:18, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
tooMuchData
05:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)I was under the impression that the Douay-Rheims Bible is the closest English translation to the Vulgate? Am I wrong?
You are correct. The Douay-Rheims is an english translation of the Vulgate. The KJV translators used the Textus Receptus to avoid translating from the Vulgate but it turned out that even Textus Receptus used the Vulgate so lots of Vulgate translations entered the KJV that way, but also the KJV translators referenced the Douay-Rheims. [Cpt|Kirk 22:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)]
Yes, KJV is closest equivalent
The comparison between the KJV and Vulgate, and whether the Douay Rheims (made from the Vulgate) is closer should not be confused. In terms of influence on their respective languages and the people who spoke them (not to mention religious life), yes the KJV and Vulgate are highly comparable. I agree that the Douay Version (and its revision by Challoner, which I may mention drew heavily from the KJV) is the closest translational equivalent of the Latin Vulgate in English. However, in terms of sheer influence and even reverance by its readers, only the KJV measures up to the Vulgate's original paradigm. Even a Catholic (which I was raised) knows what version or at least has heard the version of Psalm 23 which begins "The LORD is my shepherd: I shall not want..." The same cannot be said of the Douay's "The Lord ruleth me: and I shall want nothing..." a literal rendering of the Vulgate's "Dominus regit me: nihil mihi deerit..." posted by User:Simonapro
tooMuchData
05:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheResearchPersona ( talk • contribs)There is an inconsistancy in the Nova Vulgata section. It says Paul VI appointed a commission in 1965 to do for the Vulgate what had been done for the psalter. It later says the psalter was published in 1969. What's the story here? Rwflammang 14:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The source for these inconsistent data seems to be [1], which is a polemical essay directed against the Nova Vulgata. Perusing the essay does not make me confident that it is an accurate source. I think perhaps that removing one or both of the inconsistent statements should be our short term fix. Rwflammang 15:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The following independent clause has been bugging me for a while, and I just now removed it. It's not so much that I think it is wrong, just besides the point. Jerome never showed any inclination for the notion, so widespread today, that the Bible should omit the Apocrypha. In his prologues, he called the Apocrypha non-canonical. But he also called them scriptures, in the very same prologues. He did not consider canonical to be a synonym for scriptural. I'm removing the clause for now because I can't think of good way to make the original editor's point:
The clause implied that Jerome was in favor of removing the Apocrypha from the Vulgate. Rwflammang 15:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I have an issue with the wording "cleansed of the errors..." This presumes that only Jerome's original is "correct", and that any changes made to the text are necessarily corruptions to that purity of correctness. I think this is patently absurd. Don't get me wrong — it's fine to talk about attempting to reconstruct Jerome's original. But it's out of place to imply that it was perfect in any sense. Rocinante9 2006-08-17
I agree. I also think that the S.V. cannot be described as an attempted reconstruction of Jerome's text. In the second preface (which I do not have before me, unfortunately) the editors defend at least one of their readings by saying that the correct reconstruction of a particular verse, concerning which they had been criticized, could hardly be described as a reading at all, since almost no one had ever read it. I'm not sure what the editors were attempting to reconstruct, a majority 6th century Italian text? A collection of readings showing the least Vetus Latina influence? I just can't tell what they were after. Rwflammang 14:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems like an article about the identical content exists and should be merged and redirected here. Anyone agree and/or want to take that task on? Biblia Vulgata-- Andrew c 01:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
There wasn't much in Biblia Vulgata that was lacking in Vulgate. What little I found, I put in just now. Rwflammang 19:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the bizarre misstatement that the Vulgate was the first Christian Bible to use an Old Testament text translated from the Hebrew. The various Syrian Bibles always used a Hebrew-based text (although there was a Syro-Hexaplar version produced in the 7th Century CE). And of course, the Old Testment of the Greek Church has always been the LXX - itself directly translated from the Hebrew before the Christian era. TomHennell 02:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I am puzzled by the para below; especially the firtst and last last sentances, which appear to contradict one another:
I had thought that Jerome undertook a "revision" of selected books of the Old Latin OT (which do not survive) before he left Rome; but that his "translation" of the OT - undertaken in Betlehem, was a totally new project (source Encyclopedia Judaica). I have altered rest of the Old Testament to the rest of the deutrocanonical books, as that is what I think is meant. TomHennell 15:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for the clarification of the terminology - though I would hope that most of that could be put off into another Wiki article, in the belief that point should not be at issue here. Whether or not particular books are regarded as canonical in different Christian traditions, they are certainly regarded as Canonical within the Vulgate as officially promulgated (e.g. in the Council of Trent - albeit that Jerome himself would no doubt have some pretty harsh words in response). I would have thought it was not POV that the Clementine Vulgate presents a protocanon, a deutrocanon, and a residual apocrypha - and that the wider ecclesiastical status of these books should not be an issue for an article about the Vulgate. If the article were discussing the Ethiopic Bible, then the list of protocanon, deuterocanon and apocrypha would look very different - but it isn't.
My question was more concerned with the issue of what we are saying Jerome did (or perhaps claims he had done, as telling the unvarnished truth was not one of his dominant qualities). I think that the revision I proposed of this para corresponds to what I understand as being stated by contributors to this article; but if so, it would appear to duplicate much that is said in the next para - so perhaps they could be conflated. Maybe we should simply list the books that are in the OT of Vulgate manuscripts, but which Jerome did not revise?
regards TomHennell 18:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
tooMuchData
05:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheResearchPersona ( talk • contribs)I have redrafted this para.
Last week, the order of the editions was changed from a roughly chronological one to one that was split primariy into Catholic editions and critical editions. Since then, the lists of editions have been leaking back towards their original chronological order. The Aland edition is now in the catholic section. So is the benedictine edition dispite the fact that it was never "official" (whatever that means) and was most definitely a critical edition. I propose abolishing the whole Catholic vs. critical distinction, I do not see how it is useful, and returning to the chronological order. Rwflammang 17:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with your characterization of the Nova Vulgata Editio as a new version. It is a minor revision of 70 of the 76 books of the Clementine vulgate, following the Benedictine critical edition (which is also the basis for most of the Stuttgart Old Testament). It is a major departure in only three ways, all of which are noted in the article: 1) It follows the Vetus Latina rather than the Vulgate in Thobi and Iudith. 2) The psalms are rather more extensively changed than most of the rest of the text, but are still quite similar to the psalters of older editions. (Just compare the 2nd and 4th columns on of the psalter comparison here.) 3) The three apocrypha are omitted. It is hardly "the Vatican's 20th-century attempt at Latin prose composition". It is a vulgate in much the same sense that earlier revisions were, including Ximenes' and Hentenius' and Sixtus' and Clement's; they all corrected the text to a greater or lesser extent to better accord with the Greek. I'd say its most extreme departure in most of the text is its divergence from the punctuation of the Clementine, which is not something that most people care much about, and at any rate earlier editions also diverged in punctuation.
The term revision has been much abused in English versions of the Bible. Challoner's "revision" was practically a re-write of the Douay bible, as was the confraternity's "revision" of Challoner. The RSV is more than a revision of the KJV, despite its name. But that is most emphatically not the case here.
Rwflammang 16:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Without prejudice to the discussions above, I have proposed an introductory text that clarifies for the uninformed user the need to be aware that three texts circulate widely with the ascription of "Vulgate" Please amend, move or delete if you think this does not help. TomHennell 11:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Wareh says above:
I don't have a problem with your moving of the text at all, in fact, I approve of it. But I do object to your characterization of the NTL as non-critical. Kurt Aland is a very well known critical scholar, and in his preface to NTL, he describes his apparatus as a criticus apparatus. The Nova Vulgata New Testament is a minor revision of earlier critical editions, namely the Benedictine which in turn is dependent on Wordworth and White. A quick glance at the critical apparatus will show you that the text rarely deviates from W&W or from the Stuttgart (spelling and punctuation excepted, obviously). I propose restoring the adjective "critical" to the noun "apparatus", which is a word that hardly makes sense without it. Rwflammang 16:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The article says correctly of the NTL (and I didn't put it in there), "The text is a reprinting of the New Testament of the Nova Vulgata." A "critical edition," in my line of work (Classics professor) and also for Biblical scholars, is an editor's attempt to consistently reconstruct some old text. The Nova Vulgata is written in Latin, but it is not an attempt to reconstruct any old Latin text. Rather, it is a Latin version that chooses to follow an old Latin text (the Vulgate, apart from a few exceptions you mention) only when its editors believe that the Vulgate is in agreement with the (critically edited and interpreted) original (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek) text of the Bible. This is why, in principle, it is not a critical edition of anything. Take its New Testament: open the Novum testamentum graece et latine. On the left, you have a critical edition of an ancient Greek text. The fact that what you see on the right is not a critical edition of an old Latin text is proven by the fact that there is no difference between its meaning and the meaning of the Greek text on the left! Everywhere the old Latin texts disagreed with the results of modern scholarship on the Greek text, the NV "editors" became authors and wrote a Latin translation of the Nestle-Aland text. But a critical edition of a Latin text would not "correct" the old Latin texts in this way. Real critical editions (for example, every one of the hundreds of critical editions of Greek and Latin texts in my office) are revised only when an editor thinks he's printing something closer to the original than what had been printed. The Nova Vulgata's revisions are not of this kind, but (by intentional policy) in every single case (except for passages where the Vetus Latina is followed, which is another issue) are further departures from the reading of any known or knowable Latin original.
There is obviously a larger disagreement here, in that you believe that the Nova Vulgata is an edition of Jerome's Vulgate in any of its books ("a minor revision of 70 of the 76 books of the Clementine vulgate... a major departure in only three ways"). No one who has compared the Nova Vulgata of the prophets, for example, to the Vulgate could make this statement. I have just now literally opened my Stuttgart Vulgate at random. It fell open to Isaiah 64:1/2 (alternate numerations). So here are the two versions:
“ | 1 Sicut ignis succendit sarmenta,
aquam ebullire facit ignis, ut notum facias nomen tuum inimicis tuis, a facie tua gentes turbentur, |
” |
“ | 2 sicut exustio ignis tabescerent aquae arderent igni
ut notum fieret nomen tuum inimicis tuis a facie tua gentes turbarentur. |
” |
The only variant in the Stuttgart's apparatus is atque for aquae. The Stuttgart's apparatus is reliable, and this means that there is no variant in any known source for the Vulgate's text to justify any of the variant readings in the Nova Vulgata. This verse is a good specimen of what I called 20th-century Latin prose composition: the NV editors have used their modern understanding of a non-Latin (Hebrew) original to produce a totally new Latin translation. I picked this example at random, and I don't have time to produce more, but I can guarantee you many more results if you look at texts whose Hebrew originals were as difficult for Jerome as Isaiah. In short, the Nova Vulgata authors did include large bits from the Vulgate, but I am sure they would never claim they were offering up the Vulgate. I'm sure the people who wrote the 20th-century Latin I've just quoted are under no illusion that they're printing Latin words authored by Jerome or anyone else from the pre-20th-century history of Latin literature. The fact that it's a Latin translation of a critical Hebrew text does not make it a critical text, unless you want to say that the NRSV is a "critical edition" of the Bible too.
The article is in manifest error when it says, "Kurt and Barbara Aland published the New Testament of the Vulgate as Novum Testamentum Latine." And any description of any edition (NTL included) of any part of the Nova Vulgata as either a critical edition of a Latin text or as "the Vulgate" is also in manifest error. The Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft may have sown some of this confusion when they printed little rows of variants at the bottom of pages. But these are simply collations to keep track of the variants between the Nova Vulgata (a modern pastiche of old Latin texts and newly authored Latin texts) and other versions. A perfect equivalent would be a copy of the NRSV that collates against the RSV in an apparatus; by the logic you have offered here, such a text would be "a revised, critical edition of the RSV." But no, it's the NRSV, not the RSV. And the Nova Vulgata is a 20th-century pastiche & does not pretend to reconstruct anything earlier in its words (as opposed to in its meanings where it, like all other 20th-c. translations, claims to represent the Hebrew & Greek original with accuracy). Wareh 00:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
tooMuchData
05:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheResearchPersona ( talk • contribs)I've removed the following text from the article. The information in it did not cite sources, and frankly smells like original research. In addition, it was simply too wonkish and slowed down the article while contributing little to it. But because someone obviously spent some serious effort on it, and for the sheer quantity (if not quality) of info it contains, I decided to preserve it here on the talk page for further discussion. Rwflammang 18:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
tooMuchData
05:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheResearchPersona ( talk • contribs)Kudos to editor 203.152.122.129, who contributed much to the readability of this article in one fell swoop. Many thanks! Rwflammang 20:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The question on what "versio vulgata" actually refers to which was asked above didn't seem to get a definitive answer. The contributors danced around the question but didn't clearly answer it or say that the answer is unknown. One of the responders answered that the question of whether the translation can be considered simpler or not cannot be answered definitively, but this wasn't the question that was asked. The question was whether "versio vulgata" refers to language or style. Resources I have read generally say it was because the language was "not Greek" which had been considered the ecclesiastical language at the time. Does anybody know of credible sources that say otherwise?
If not this is a point worth bringing out. Historically it is is interesting that during much of the Roman history the Latin language often took a back seat to Greek for many things in Roman society. The publication of the Vulgate was, in fact, a sign that Latin was making a comeback. -- Mcorazao 21:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Eccl1212 has changed the ISBN of the Stuttgart vulgate from ( ISBN 3-438-05303-9) to ( ISBN 1598561782). What is the qualitative difference between these two editions? They are both described as 4th editions, but Amazon says that the new edition is 39 pages shorter and is issued by Hendrickson Publishers rather than the ABS. See here for [http://www.amazon.com/Biblia-Sacra-Vulgata-R-Gryson/dp/1598561782/ref=sr_11_1/104-0262503-3642309?ie=UTF8&qid=1182787422&sr=11-1 new] and [http://www.amazon.com/Biblia-Sacra-Vulgata-R-Weber/dp/3438053039/ref=sr_11_1/104-0262503-3642309?ie=UTF8&qid=1182787530&sr=11-1 old]. The old edition from the ABS is searchable, the new Hendrickson is not. Rwflammang 16:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)