J
Jehuty_X
Guest
// so, are there any textual differences between the clementine and stuttgart vulgate???
- Status
G
Geremia
Guest
The Stuttgart Vulgate is Protestant (from the “non-denominational Christian,” German bible society Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft), so by that very fact it is not orthodox. I read only the Clementine Vulgate; it is accurate, orthodox, and very Catholic. You can tell if it’s a genuine Clementine Vulgate if it spells Eve’s name Heva.
T
_thaddeus
Guest
Both the Jerusalem Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible translate John 8:25 as “So they said to him, ‘Who are you?’ Jesus answered: 'What I have told you from the outset.”
The Jerusalem Bible footnotes have:
8h. A very obscure text; it is variously rendered ‘Why, in the first place, am I speaking to you?’; ‘Why should I speak to you at all?’; ‘What I have been telling you from the beginning’; ‘Precisely what I am telling you’. Our translation resembles this last but preserves the idea of temporal priority which leads up to the following ‘then’ of v. 28, thus: as it is, the Jews have the opportunity of knowing Christ from his words; afterwards, when they know him as one ‘lifted up’ (12:32+), it will be too late. The Vulg. translation ‘(I am) the Beginning who speak to you’ is grammatically impossible.
The New Jerusalem Bible footnotes have:
8h. A very obscure text; it is variously rendered ‘Why, in the first place, am I speaking to you?’; ‘Why should I speak to you at all?’; ‘What I have been telling you from the beginning’; ‘Precisely what I am telling you’. Our translation resembles this last but preserves the idea of temporal priority which leads up to the following ‘then’ of v. 28. thus: as it is, the Jews have the opportunity of knowing Jesus from his words; afterwards, when they know him as one ‘lifted up’ it will be too late.
The New American Bible footnotes have:
[25] What I told you from the beginning: this verse seems textually corrupt, with several other possible translations: “(I am) what I say to you”; “Why do I speak to you at all?” The earliest attested reading (Bodmer Papyrus P66) has (in a second hand), “I told you at the beginning what I am also telling you (now).” The answer here (cf Proverb 8:22) seems to hinge on a misunderstanding of John 8:24 “that I AM” as “what I am.”
As I don’t know Greek and forgot most of my Latin, "Jesus said to them: The beginning, who also speak unto you. " makes sense to me.
The Jerusalem Bible footnotes have:
8h. A very obscure text; it is variously rendered ‘Why, in the first place, am I speaking to you?’; ‘Why should I speak to you at all?’; ‘What I have been telling you from the beginning’; ‘Precisely what I am telling you’. Our translation resembles this last but preserves the idea of temporal priority which leads up to the following ‘then’ of v. 28, thus: as it is, the Jews have the opportunity of knowing Christ from his words; afterwards, when they know him as one ‘lifted up’ (12:32+), it will be too late. The Vulg. translation ‘(I am) the Beginning who speak to you’ is grammatically impossible.
The New Jerusalem Bible footnotes have:
8h. A very obscure text; it is variously rendered ‘Why, in the first place, am I speaking to you?’; ‘Why should I speak to you at all?’; ‘What I have been telling you from the beginning’; ‘Precisely what I am telling you’. Our translation resembles this last but preserves the idea of temporal priority which leads up to the following ‘then’ of v. 28. thus: as it is, the Jews have the opportunity of knowing Jesus from his words; afterwards, when they know him as one ‘lifted up’ it will be too late.
The New American Bible footnotes have:
[25] What I told you from the beginning: this verse seems textually corrupt, with several other possible translations: “(I am) what I say to you”; “Why do I speak to you at all?” The earliest attested reading (Bodmer Papyrus P66) has (in a second hand), “I told you at the beginning what I am also telling you (now).” The answer here (cf Proverb 8:22) seems to hinge on a misunderstanding of John 8:24 “that I AM” as “what I am.”
As I don’t know Greek and forgot most of my Latin, "Jesus said to them: The beginning, who also speak unto you. " makes sense to me.
J
James224
Guest
I don’t know which is more orthodox but I have the Clementine Vulgate. This is the one used in the Latin Mass and it’s the one the Douay-Rheims is translated from.
M
MKF
Guest
Ron: Thank you for taking the time to post your answers. They have been a big help to me in understanding that there really is a Clementine difficulty. Everyone has done a good job of exposing the difficulty. This is such a mind boggle.
Geremia, thanks for the Heva note. From whom did you learn that clue?
I am very interested in knowing which Bible quotes can identify whether a Vulgate is a Clementine or a Stuttgart. I am no biblical scholar and simply hold the Catholic Faith of all time since that is what being Catholic is. There is no new Catholic that contradicts what is old which gives cause to rejoice. What was defined by the Catholic Church for 1000 years cannot be rightly put aside. Yes nuances arise, and those that are true are Catholic… Figuring what is truly authentic is the trick.
I have noticed that the Mass “In Medio” in the 1947 New Marian Missal and the old Fr. Lassance use the masculine voice for Ecclesiasticus 15:5 whereas the drbo and TAN Challoner use the feminine voice. The Challoner, otherwise, is the closest that we have found to the texts used in the Missals that were traditionally in use. I would be interested in what the Angelus Press and the Baronius Missals use since they are basically reprints of the New Marian with adjustments in the Proper of the Saints.
It seems to me that I remember reading that the Greek texts that St. Jerome had used are not extant and that other Greek texts were used by Protestants in support of their versions. If this is true, it seems off subject to compare texts to Greek texts.
A Catholic reason to prefer the Clementine (if one can trust its source - I’ve read somewhere that there is a questionable Spanish version) is its very codification of the best words available regardless of some missing books. Why would I want books that were not included for centuries included in what I trust to be the timeless Catholic Bible. I believe what the Catholic Church teaches, even if it is hard for laymen to discern at times like this.
Again, I’d really like a list of several quotes in order to be able to recognize the differences between the Clementine and the Stuttgart. Punctuation alone can cause a difference in meaning, so I would appreciate the punctuated version.
Rinkevichjm: If the Stuttgart was signed by an OSB, does that eliminate the importance of the influence of the German Bible Society if the Stuttgart is also a product of this same society and more importantly if it is a Protestant organization? Was he THE editor or one of the editors?
If there are differences between the Clementine and the Stuttgart, it would seem to me that they would be matters of importance and I would like to be able to recognize them.
Thanks
Geremia, thanks for the Heva note. From whom did you learn that clue?
I am very interested in knowing which Bible quotes can identify whether a Vulgate is a Clementine or a Stuttgart. I am no biblical scholar and simply hold the Catholic Faith of all time since that is what being Catholic is. There is no new Catholic that contradicts what is old which gives cause to rejoice. What was defined by the Catholic Church for 1000 years cannot be rightly put aside. Yes nuances arise, and those that are true are Catholic… Figuring what is truly authentic is the trick.
I have noticed that the Mass “In Medio” in the 1947 New Marian Missal and the old Fr. Lassance use the masculine voice for Ecclesiasticus 15:5 whereas the drbo and TAN Challoner use the feminine voice. The Challoner, otherwise, is the closest that we have found to the texts used in the Missals that were traditionally in use. I would be interested in what the Angelus Press and the Baronius Missals use since they are basically reprints of the New Marian with adjustments in the Proper of the Saints.
It seems to me that I remember reading that the Greek texts that St. Jerome had used are not extant and that other Greek texts were used by Protestants in support of their versions. If this is true, it seems off subject to compare texts to Greek texts.
A Catholic reason to prefer the Clementine (if one can trust its source - I’ve read somewhere that there is a questionable Spanish version) is its very codification of the best words available regardless of some missing books. Why would I want books that were not included for centuries included in what I trust to be the timeless Catholic Bible. I believe what the Catholic Church teaches, even if it is hard for laymen to discern at times like this.
Again, I’d really like a list of several quotes in order to be able to recognize the differences between the Clementine and the Stuttgart. Punctuation alone can cause a difference in meaning, so I would appreciate the punctuated version.
Rinkevichjm: If the Stuttgart was signed by an OSB, does that eliminate the importance of the influence of the German Bible Society if the Stuttgart is also a product of this same society and more importantly if it is a Protestant organization? Was he THE editor or one of the editors?
If there are differences between the Clementine and the Stuttgart, it would seem to me that they would be matters of importance and I would like to be able to recognize them.
Thanks
M
melchesidechpio
Guest
I will never recommend the Stuttgart because it isn’t a true Latin Vulgate. It was compiled by German Protestant Bible Society. Clementine Vulgate all the way.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
The Stuttgart Editions of the Bible in Latin (there are several) are the work of the Protestant ‘German Bible Society’ and the Protestant ‘United Bible Societies’. A minority of persons involved in this project were Catholic.
There are many substantial differences between the Clementine and Stuttgart. Too many to list. Here is the entire Gospel of Matthew, collated with three Latin versions
sacredbible.org/articles/Matthew-Latin3.htm
- CV – Clementine Vulgate, 1914 Hetzenauer edition, public domain, from SacredBible.org
- NV – Nova Vulgata, current edition from the Vatican.va website
- FS – Stuttgart Vulgate, 1975 edition, edited by Fischer et al.
M
MKF
Guest
Thanks.
That is quite a parallel.
Do you have a Clementine and an English translation of it with the masculine voice for Ecclesiasticus 15:5?
So far, this is the first quote that I have seen that indicates a difference between what is online and commonly called Clementine and what is in the Liturgy from before 1962. Both the Latin and the English of the Missal use the masculine and I cannot find either online.
I note that the drbo version uses punctuation in the English but not in the Latin! I am very surprised to see that it is the Stuttgart - I double checked this evening after thinking that it must not be the Stuttgart since the English is punctuated. I apologize if I have said it else where that it was because I had not checked the Latin version - I didn’t know that it was on there until last night. I wish that he at least had the version others use for their “Clementine”.
Guess what I found online tonight!?!
Two sites with the masculine translations! I Googled the Latin and many sites came up.
dailycatholic.org/issue/10Jun/jun18pom.htm
mysite.verizon.net/missale/jan14.html
I’ll be going back to the same search after Rosary…
That is quite a parallel.
Do you have a Clementine and an English translation of it with the masculine voice for Ecclesiasticus 15:5?
So far, this is the first quote that I have seen that indicates a difference between what is online and commonly called Clementine and what is in the Liturgy from before 1962. Both the Latin and the English of the Missal use the masculine and I cannot find either online.
I note that the drbo version uses punctuation in the English but not in the Latin! I am very surprised to see that it is the Stuttgart - I double checked this evening after thinking that it must not be the Stuttgart since the English is punctuated. I apologize if I have said it else where that it was because I had not checked the Latin version - I didn’t know that it was on there until last night. I wish that he at least had the version others use for their “Clementine”.
Guess what I found online tonight!?!
Two sites with the masculine translations! I Googled the Latin and many sites came up.
dailycatholic.org/issue/10Jun/jun18pom.htm
mysite.verizon.net/missale/jan14.html
I’ll be going back to the same search after Rosary…
M
Manfred
Guest
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but both of those translations are very similar to what I have in my Fr Lasance (1956) and St Joseph’s Daily (1959) Missals. What I mean is, you’ve only found more evidence that there is a discrepancy of sorts between the D-R and the Missals; this does not indicate that there is an English version of one of the Vulgates that supports what’s in the Missal.
M
Manfred
Guest
I looked at both the Clementine and the Latin from the Missal pages you cited above. If I understand correctly, there is no way other than from context to determine whether the subject pronoun of these sentences is masculine or feminine. The object pronoun, however, clearly appears to be masculine (illum, as opposed to illam).
M
MKF
Guest
Thanks for the notes. You’re right.
I was simply happy to have found SOMETHING that matched the Missal online! I realize that I haven’t found an integral Clementine in Latin or in English. I hope that the owners of such sites might be able to give an answer/source.
You’ve been a big help, thanks.
I’m going to search more this weekend.
A holy Advent and a Merry Christmas!
I was simply happy to have found SOMETHING that matched the Missal online! I realize that I haven’t found an integral Clementine in Latin or in English. I hope that the owners of such sites might be able to give an answer/source.
You’ve been a big help, thanks.
I’m going to search more this weekend.
A holy Advent and a Merry Christmas!
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
The context of course makes the subject feminine:
{15:2} et obviabit illi quasi mater honorificata, et quasi mulier a virginitate suscipiet illum.
{15:2} And like an honorable mother, she will meet him, and like a virgin bride, she will receive him.
Also, Wisdom is grammatically feminine in the Latin.
{15:5} et in medio Ecclesiæ aperiet os eius, et adimplebit illum spiritu sapientiæ et intellectus, et stola gloriæ vestiet illum.
{15:5} And in the midst of the Church, she will open his mouth, and she will fill him with the spirit of wisdom and understanding, and she will clothe him with a robe of glory.
G
Geremia
Guest
The "FIUV Position Paper #5 does a very good job illustrating what’s wrong with the Neo-Vulgate.
M
MKF
Guest
Thanks for the note.
I’ve put it on my task bar to read this evening.
I knew that there were differences and this paper seems like it might explain the differences.
I’ve put it on my task bar to read this evening.
I knew that there were differences and this paper seems like it might explain the differences.
B
Barzillai
Guest
Tonight when I was thinking about the Vulgate (the Latin version of the Bible used by the Catholic Church), I started searching in Google and eventually saw this thread. This thread answered all my questions about new versions of the Latin text used by the Church. All the posts here are interesting and helpful in getting the big picture.
For my questions the posts by Ron Conte clearly and convincingly answered my questions. A bonus was his good examples of how the ancient Church and Church Fathers are related to the ancient texts – and the significance of that for us today.
A public thank you to Ron and a suggestion to all CAF readers that this six-year-old thread contains excellent information.
For my questions the posts by Ron Conte clearly and convincingly answered my questions. A bonus was his good examples of how the ancient Church and Church Fathers are related to the ancient texts – and the significance of that for us today.
A public thank you to Ron and a suggestion to all CAF readers that this six-year-old thread contains excellent information.
- Status