DRBO.ORG question

[Mattjolley]

Which version of the Vulgate does this website use? drbo.org

I sent the site owner this question and got a rather ‘unfriendly’ response!

Matt

 

[patrick457]

Which version of the Vulgate does this website use? drbo.org

I sent the site owner this question and got a rather ‘unfriendly’ response!

Matt

It would seem that the site uses the widespread Stuttgart Vulgate. According to Wikipedia:

This Vulgate was first published in 1969 (5th edition, 2007) by the German Bible Society (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft), based in Stuttgart. This edition, alternatively titled Biblia Sacra Vulgata or Biblia Sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem, is a “manual edition” in that it reduces much of the information in the big multi-volume critical editions that preceded it into a single compact volume.

It is based on earlier critical editions of the Vulgate, including the Benedictine edition and the Latin New Testament produced by Wordsworth and White, which provided variant readings from the diverse manuscripts and printed editions of the Vulgate and comparison of different wordings in their footnotes. The Stuttgart Vulgate attempts, through critical comparison of important, historical manuscripts of the Vulgate, to recreate an early text, cleansed of the scribal errors of a millennium.

An important feature in the Stuttgart edition for those studying the Vulgate is the inclusion of all of Jerome’s prologues to the Bible, the Testaments, and the major books and sections (Pentateuch, Gospels, Minor Prophets, etc.) of the Bible. This adheres to the style of medieval editions of the Vulgate, which were never without Jerome’s prologues. In its spelling, the Stuttgart also retains a more medieval Latin orthography than the Clementine, sometimes using oe rather than ae, and having more proper nouns beginning with H (i.e., Helimelech instead of Elimelech), but the spelling is inconsistent throughout, as in the manuscripts. The Stuttgart Vulgate also follows the medieval manuscripts in using line breaks, rather than the modern system of punctuation marks, to indicate the structure of each verse. Because of these features, it initially presents an unfamiliar appearance to readers accustomed to the Clementine text.

It contains two Psalters, both the traditional Gallicanum and the juxta Hebraicum, which are printed on facing pages to allow easy comparison and contrast between the two versions. It has an expanded Apocrypha, containing Psalm 151 and the Epistle to the Laodiceans in addition to 3 and 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses. In addition, its modern prefaces are a source of valuable information about the history of the Vulgate.

One reason for the Stuttgart Edition’s importance rests in the fact that it is the one most disseminated on the Internet. This electronic version is usually mutilated, lacking all formatting, notes, prefaces and apparatus, and lacking the Gallican Psalter, Apocrypha, and Deuterocanonical books, and often containing only the first three chapters of Daniel, stopping at the point where the deuterocanonical Song of the Three Holy Children would begin.

Fortunately, unlike most websites, that particular site contains all of Daniel, uses the Gallican Psalter and contains the Deuterocanonicals.

As an aside, just how ‘unfriendly’ was this response?

 

[tobinatorstark]

It is the Struttgart edition. I wouldn’t bother reading the Vulgate on that site, although the Douay-Rheims is good. If you want to read the Vulgate I would suggest getting a copy of the Clementine Edition as opposed to the Nova Vulgata. You can get the Clementine Edition for 20 dollars, but I can’t remember the site, but the bad thing it is paperback and not leather or hardbound.

 

[tee_eff_em]

It is the Struttgart edition. I wouldn’t bother reading the Vulgate on that site, although the Douay-Rheims is good. If you want to read the Vulgate I would suggest getting a copy of the Clementine Edition as opposed to the Nova Vulgata. You can get the Clementine Edition for 20 dollars, but I can’t remember the site, but the bad thing it is paperback and not leather or hardbound.

Concur: I have little interest in the Stuttgart

Through the Clementine Text Project.

If you want to read the Douay-Rheims and Clementine (and/or Nova Vulgata) side by side online, I would recommend the Unbound Bible.

tee

 

[NoelFitz]

From the replies it seems the Clementine Vulgate is preferred.

In Logos (The Libronix Digital Library System) both Vulgates are given. They are alsao in BibleWorks 7.

Biblia Sacra Vulgata

Jerome’s translation of the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures into the vulgar (common) tongue of his time: Latin. It was recognized as authoritative during the Council of Trent (1546) and became the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church. The widespread use of the Vulgate is also recognizable in its influence in early modern Bible translations, such as the Authorized, or King James, Version. Since Jerome lived in the fourth century AD, the original text “developed” much as the Greek autographs did, with geographical variant readings, etc., and the modern edition is a critical text from these variant manuscripts, much as is the case with modern Greek texts. The Vulgate continues to be of scholarly use today in the study of the textual transmission of the Bible and in the historical study of Christian theology.
Bibliographic Citation
Biblia Sacra Vulgata : Iuxta Vulgatem Versionem. electronic edition of the 3rd edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1969; Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996.

Clementine Vulgate

Commissioned by Pope Damasus I and prepared c. A.D. 383-405, Jerome’s Vulgate rapidly became the standard version of the Bible in the West and remained so for centuries. The Clementine Vulgate is the official edition of the Latin Vulgate, corrected and standardized following the Council of Trent and promulgated in 1592 by Pope Clement VIII.
Bibliographic Citation
Biblia Sacra Juxta Vulgatam Clementinam. Ed. electronica. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2005.

Thus one can make one’s choice. However it does seem, in agreement with previous posts, that the traditional Clementine version is preferable, but I would not be too negative about the Nova (Stuttgart) one.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Thus one can make one’s choice. However it does seem, in agreement with previous posts, that the traditional Clementine version is preferable, but I would not be too negative about the

Nova (Stuttgart)

one.

Just to clarify: The Stuttgart Vulgate may be of scholarly interest, but was never a liturgical text used by the Church.

Moreover (and my point) it is not the Nova Vulgata, which, rather, is a new translation in accord with modern textual and linguistic studies, and first promulgated in 1979. The *Nova Vulgata *is the current official Latin scripture of the Church, just as the Clementine Vulgate was for nearly 400 years prior to it.

cf. Wikipedia

(I do not really have anything *against *the Stuttgart – I just have two Catholic editions to choose from, so have little use for it )


tee

 

[Manfred]

Which version of the Vulgate does this website use? drbo.org

I sent the site owner this question and got a rather ‘unfriendly’ response!

Matt

As was pointed out by several other posters, drbo.org uses the Stuttgart Vg, which is neither the Clementine nor the Neo-Vulgate (Nova Vulgata).

For the D-R, besides my hard copy, I use this highly-reliable site:

newadvent.org/bible/

 

[NoelFitz]

Tee_eff_em

Thank you for you clarification.

 

[Ron_Conte]

my site:
sacredbible.org/

has the Clementine version, as well as the Tweedale edition, and (in progress) the van Ess comparison of the Sixtine and three Clementine editions, of the Latin Vulgate.

The Unbound Bible uses the Tweedale edition of the Clementine.

The Stuttgart is a Protestant work which differs substantially from the Vulgate in any edition.

For the original Douai Bible, I recommend the Dr. Peters edition, available in four volumes (expensive though), from lulu.com.

 

[NoelFitz]

Perhaps here some are being a bit harsh in their opinion of the Stuttgart (UBS) Biblia Sacra Vulgata : Iuxta Vulgatem Versionem.

It seems to me to be the most scholarly available. However it is accepted that it has not been used in Catholic liturgies.

The description of it is not particularly Protestant. A Protestant vulgate is an oxymoron.
Descriptions of it in the www do not indicate a Protestant bias.

This Vulgate was first published in 1969 (5th edition, 2007) by the German Bible Society (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft), based in Stuttgart. This edition, alternatively titled Biblia Sacra Vulgata or Biblia Sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem (ISBN 3438053039 and ISBN 1598561782 for North America), is a “manual edition” in that it reduces much of the information in the big multi-volume critical editions that preceded it into a single compact volume. It is based on earlier critical editions of the Vulgate,[11][12][13][14][15] including the Benedictine edition and the Latin New Testament produced by Wordsworth and White, which provided variant readings from the diverse manuscripts and printed editions of the Vulgate and comparison of different wordings in their footnotes. The Stuttgart Vulgate attempts, through critical comparison of important, historical manuscripts of the Vulgate, to recreate an early text, cleansed of the scribal errors of a millennium.

It aims to be a scholarly reconstruction of St Jerome’s Vulgate. If one wants to study the Vulgate from an academic point of view it may be the best choice. However if one wants to use the Vulgate for prayer, meditation and reflection, especially within a Catholic context, it is probably not the best choice.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

How close was the Vulgate at the time of Trent to what St. Jerome originally wrote?

 

[Ron_Conte]

How close was the Vulgate at the time of Trent to what St. Jerome originally wrote?

There was no official Vulgate at the time of Trent. There were several editions in recent circulation, some of which Trent criticized for not giving the names of the editors and printers. We are not really sure what the content was of Jerome’s text. He had IIRC three different versions of the Psalms. He might not have translated the entire Bible; some of what he did was to arbitrate between different existing editions in Latin (of which there were many).

As for the Stuttgart, regardless of whether or not they were attempting to recreate Jerome’s text, they would have no way of doing that. It is not extant.

 

[NoelFitz]

I read:

Originally Posted by Jerry-Jet
How close was the Vulgate at the time of Trent to what St. Jerome originally wrote?

As can be gathered the story is complex.

Wikipedia may not be fully accurate but the following may be of intrerest:

The Clementine Vulgate

After the Reformation, when the Catholic Church strove to counter the attacks and refute the doctrines of Protestantism, the Vulgate was reaffirmed in the Council of Trent as the sole, authorized Latin text of the Bible.[6] To reinforce this declaration, the council commissioned the pope to make a standard text of the Vulgate out of the countless editions produced during the Renaissance and manuscripts produced during the Middle Ages. The actual first manifestation of this authorized text did not appear until 1590. It was sponsored by Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) and known as the Sistine Vulgate. It was based on the edition of Robertus Stephanus corrected to agree with the Greek, but it was hurried into print and suffered from many printing errors. It was soon replaced by a new edition by Clement VIII (1592-1605) who immediately ordered corrections and revisions to be made. This new revised version was based more on the Hentenian edition. It is called today the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate, or simply the Clementine, although it is Sixtus’ name which appears on the title page. Clement published three printings of this edition, in 1592, 1593 and 1598.

The Clementine differed from the manuscripts on which it was ultimately based in that it grouped the various prefaces of St. Jerome together at the beginning, and it removed 3 and 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses from the Old Testament and placed them in an appendix.

The Clementine Vulgate of 1592 became the standard Bible text of the Roman Rite of the Roman Catholic Church until 1979, when the Nova Vulgata was promulgated.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I don’t buy that it wouldn’t be useful to have an English translation of the Nova Vulgata. We have English translations of nearly every other Latin document that the Catholic Church produces–are you going to tell me that the ONE that we shouldn’t have is the bible?

That doesn’t make sense!

I’m not biblica scholar–the Nova Vulgata might not be the most perfect example of the Vulgate that St. Jerome originally wrote–but it does have real authority.

If the Holy See says that it is the juridical text for the Latin rite of the Catholic Church–isn’t that a little bit higher approval than any bishop conference–and that is not saying that such conferences do not have authority granted to them–I just think that the approval of the pope himself counts for a little more.

The Liturgy is submitted to the Holy See.

Wouldn’t it be a good thing for translations to be submitted to the Holy See? I know that is not the case but it seems like a good idea. Why not?

What I dream of may never happen–a tranlation produced by scholars CHOSEN by the Holy See and their textual decisions SCRUTINIZED by the Holy See and approval by the pope himself of the finished product.

That wouldn’t mean that the pope would endorse every word of the translation but if you did have something like that you wouldn’t run into bias–you wouldn’t run into national biases or theological biases.

And of course such a group of scholars should continually update the bible on the best scholarship when warranted.

The Vulgate is not perfect and no tranlation is perfect.

All I know is this–the Catholic Church wrote the bible led by the Holy Spirit–why shouldn’t the Catholic Church make the translation choices–make the choices between different textual renderings–why shouldn’t the Catholic Church decide which ancient original text renderings are the most reliable?

As it is all we have is what any group of scholars thinks!

How authoratative is that?

Shouldn’t the people of God’s world be entitled to the best possible bible that the Catholic Church thinks is right?

 

[NoelFitz]

Jerry-Jet

your ideas are interesting and deserve consideration.

In this context do you mean by the “Holy See” the members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission?

 

[Ron_Conte]

I’m not biblica scholar–the Nova Vulgata might not be the most perfect example of the Vulgate that St. Jerome originally wrote–but it does have real authority.

So, it doesn’t matter to you that some of the text has been altered, with no support in the Latin, Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic? You don’t even consider whether it would be suitable as a source text for a translation? It has authoritative approval, so we need not think any further?

What I dream of may never happen–a tranlation produced by scholars CHOSEN by the Holy See and their textual decisions SCRUTINIZED by the Holy See and approval by the pope himself of the finished product.

This has already happened, the Sixtine edition was worked on by Pope Sixtus V, and approved by him, and published by the Holy See. Yet it was also improved under Pope Clement VIII, with over 3000 changes to the text. The edition worked on and approved by Pope Sixtus V needed to be improved.

The Neo-Vulgate is mostly ignored by Latin scholars. The mere fact that it has authoritative approval does not make it a good version.

All I know is this–the Catholic Church wrote the bible led by the Holy Spirit–why shouldn’t the Catholic Church make the translation choices–make the choices between different textual renderings–why shouldn’t the Catholic Church decide which ancient original text renderings are the most reliable?

The Pope is not the Church. The Holy See is not the Church. The Church is all the faithful, including the Pope and Bishops, including the souls in Purgatory and in Heaven, with Christ as its head. ‘The Church’ can’t make a Bible translation.

Shouldn’t the people of God’s world be entitled to the best possible bible that the Catholic Church thinks is right?

The Church does not think. The decisions of the current Pope are the decisions of the current Pope, not the decisions of the universal Church.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

If Trent could endorse the Vulgate could a future Ecumenical Council endorse any other text?

Noel Fitz: The pontifical Biblical commission was authorized by Pope Pius XII to revise the Psalter.

Course alot of people complained because they said the Latin was too classical and not as crude as previous Latin.

I thought they did a pretty good job–the Vulgate was not always correct but they didn’t wholesale buy into the Masoretic text like the Protestants did.

I just wish it was like the census–every 10 years have a Bible approved by the Holy See by scholars of it’s choosing and make only those changes that did seem warranted by biblical scholarship.

Some here may think that I just worship the Vulgate–I don’t–and I do believe that accurarte original language texts that are discovered and found to be reliable should be incorporated into the bible.

I’d just like it better if the Holy See picked the scholars and if the Holy See bought off on any of the new changes that came from such biblical scholarship.

The Vulgate does not err on doctrine–but Trent never said that every single word of it was perfect.

Where it can be improved upon–let the Holy See decide–it is certainly within its jurisdiction as head of the Catholic Church’s magisterium.

I trust the Catholic Church’s magisterium and the pope united with it–I trust much less any other teaching authority–such as Conferences of bishops or individual bishops or groups of Catholic theologians or scholars that are not scrutinized by the Holy See.

I also respect the ordinary magisterium–I just don’t think that the ordinary magisterium should be in charge of super ordinary things–the bible is one of those things that are beyond ordinary.

If it takes the Holy See to approve the Liturgy–it should take the Holy See to approve a blble translation.

That of course is only my opinion and carries no authority.

 

[Ron_Conte]

There was no single authoritative Vulgate edition at the time that Trent ruled on the matter. In my view, they were referring to the Latin Scriptural tradition, and they were rejecting Latin editions that were not a continuation of that tradition. So Trent did not choose an edition or version, so much as a Scriptural tradition going back to the early Church.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Ron Conte: which edition of the Vulgate do you think is closest to Latin scriptural tradition?

Is it possible to more closely approximate Latin scriptural tradition now or was Latin scriptural tradition firmly established by the time of Trent?

Did that Latin scriptural tradition change any after the time of St. Jerome?

 

[Ron_Conte]

Ron Conte: which edition of the Vulgate do you think is closest to Latin scriptural tradition?

Is it possible to more closely approximate Latin scriptural tradition now or was Latin scriptural tradition firmly established by the time of Trent?

Did that Latin scriptural tradition change any after the time of St. Jerome?

Latin Scriptural tradition cannot be entirely represented in any one edition.
It is stretched out in time, and found in a series of editions.
However, the Clementine edition is perhaps, so far, the best fruit of that tree.
The Vetus Latina (the latin bible before Jerome) is an important root of that tree.
vetuslatina.org/

At the time of Trent, the work of Jerome was not extant, and there was no authoritative edition of the Latin, which is why I say that Trent referred to a tradition, rather than to any one edition. Scripture is continually being improved by the Living Tradition: by means of new translations, new edits, comparison of other languages to the Latin, good scholarly work, new manuscripts being found (e.g. Qumran scrolls), etc. The Bible is evolving.