About the Gospel reading

[henrikhank]

Pax!
The gospel reading for (4-5-2014) is John 8:12:20
The reading begins like this: “In illo témpore: Locútus est Iesus turbis Iudæórum, dicens:”
I am aware of the adding of “in illo tempore” but the other part is a bit confusing. The Vulgate actually begins the text with: “Iterum ergo locutus est eis Jesus, dicens:”
Could someone please explain!

 

[sirach2v4]

We’re decades past anybody in the US using Latin knowledgeably.

What you seem to have are two different versions. Pick one.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

you are reading two different translation from the Greek into Latin

 

[henrikhank]

Well, I’ve been taught that the Gospel should always be the Vulgate. If that is the case why is there a change in the text?

 

[bardegaulois]

“Iterum” (again) is replaced by “in illo tempore” (at that time), because the reading does not reference the prior event. “Eis” (to them) is replaced by “turbis Iudaeorum” (in the midst of the crowd of the Jews) to provide the context given prior to the start of the reading.

It’s all just an addition of context so as to make the self-contained reading more understandable.

 

[ProVobis]

The gospel reading for (4-5-2014) is John 8:12:20
The reading begins like this: “In illo témpore: Locútus est Iesus turbis Iudæórum, dicens:”
I am aware of the adding of “in illo tempore” but the other part is a bit confusing. The Vulgate actually begins the text with: “Iterum ergo locutus est eis Jesus, dicens:”
Could someone please explain!

I haven’t looked this up but is this the Nova Vulgata where they may have removed the reference to Judea?

Thanks for the observation, by the way.

 

[henrikhank]

so the Church are allowed to change the Gospel text in the Liturgy?

 

[ProVobis]

so the Church are allowed to change the Gospel text in the Liturgy?

Seeing that the Church wrote the Gospels in the first place, yes. It seems in this case they had legitimate reasons for doing so, if my theory is correct about the Nova Vulgata.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

so the Church are allowed to change the Gospel text in the Liturgy?

It not a matter of changing the text. Remember that the Gospels were written in Greek not Latin so if you are reading it in any language other that Greek it is a translation. And Yes translations do change. and the one doing the translating is allowed to determine how that translation is done. Here is a good example. the red is mine.
John 21 15When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. 16He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. 17He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.
In English it never translated this way but it could be.

15So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you have an unconditional love for Me greater more than these?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I am your best friend.” He said to him, “Tend My lambs.” 16He said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you do you have an unconditional love for Me?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I am your best friend.” He said to him, “Shepherd My sheep.” 17He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, am I your best friend?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love unconditionally.” Jesus said to him, “Tend My sheep.

 

[ProVobis]

It not a matter of changing the text. Remember that the Gospels were written in Greek not Latin so if you are reading it in any language other that Greek it is a translation.

Not necessarily true and not that simple. The Greek wasn’t as well-preserved as the Latin and in some cases had to be retranslated from the Latin.

Also in your examples you are using English to demonstrate your point. This is a common mistake. Don’t you think Jerome, who was a Greek scholar, had a better sense of the Greek and had more Greek texts available than those who came much later and translated whatever Greek they had to English? If you read from the Latin directly, you’re actually less removed from the original. You’re also dealing with two ancient languages much of whose nuances and inflections are similar. Vocabulary isn’t everything.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Not necessarily true and not that simple. The Greek wasn’t as well-preserved as the Latin and in some cases had to be retranslated from the Latin.

Also in your examples you are using English to demonstrate your point. This is a common mistake. Don’t you think Jerome, who was a Greek scholar, had a better sense of the Greek and had more Greek texts available than those who came much later and translated whatever Greek they had to English? If you read from the Latin directly, you’re actually less removed from the original. You’re also dealing with two ancient languages much of whose nuances and inflections are similar. Vocabulary isn’t everything.

No matter it is still a translation be it from Greek to Latin or Greek to English. Therefore it relies on the one doing the translation to discern those nuances and inflections. An excellent example of that is in the Credo. In the Latin the adding to the Filioque poses no theological issue, However it is not adding in the Greek as it does pose issue of heresy in Greek and is one (although small in my opinion) blockages to unity with the Greek Orthodox.

 

[ProVobis]

No matter it is still a translation be it from Greek to Latin or Greek to English. Therefore it relies on the one doing the translation to discern those nuances and inflections. An excellent example of that is in the Credo. In the Latin the adding to the Filioque poses no theological issue, However it is not adding in the Greek as it does pose issue of heresy in Greek and is one (although small in my opinion) blockages to unity with the Greek Orthodox.

Good point, but it’s more than the one word, Filioque. It’s the entire sentence and how the original was perceived, together with linguistic bias IMO. Since many Greeks wrote in Latin, it shouldn’t be been the issue but unfortunately it became one.

 

[henrikhank]

why did they need to change some of the Latin in the text a quoted? What is the reason for this? Where they not 100% satisfied with the Vulgate?

 

[ProVobis]

why did they need to change some of the Latin in the text a quoted? What is the reason for this? Where they not 100% satisfied with the Vulgate?

For better or for worse.

The Nova Vulgata is the official Latin version of the Bible for the Catholic Church. It has its origins in the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), which put forth the mandate for a revision of the Latin Psalter in order to bring it in line with modern text-critical research. Then in 1965, Pope Paul VI established a commission to expand the revision to cover the entire Bible. The revised Psalter was completed and published in 1969, followed by the New Testament in 1971, and the entire Vulgate was completed in 1979. A second edition was then published several years later in 1986.

The textual basis of the Nova Vulgata is the critical edition of Jerome’s Vulgate, as edited by the monks of the Benedictine Abbey of St. Jerome in Rome and the critical edition of the Vulgate edited by Robert Weber (also available with a critical apparatus in the German Bible Society Bundle). The basis for Tobit and Judith are the Old Latin manuscripts that predate Jerome’s translation. Together this collection of texts were revised according to modern critical editions of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, along with a number of places where the editors believed that Jerome had misunderstood the meaning of the original or had translated it obscurely.

The original goal of the Nova Vulgata was to provide an authoritative edition of Jerome’s translation for the production of a reformed Latin liturgy, while also correcting the Vulgate in use and taking into account other important liturgical factors such as readability in public and singability for choirs.

logos.com/product/8081/nova-vulgata-bibliorum-sacrorum-editio