How Catholic is the Novum Testamentum Graece?

[TheMese]

Does anyone know what the Catholic Church hierarchy think of the Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition published by the (Protestant) German Bible Society. Is this our definitive NT Text. I presume the criteria for inclusion will be based on rational, anti-supernatural and anti-traditional criteria.

And what is the Nova Vulgata. Is this just the NA27 translated into Latin?

I note that many of the Catholic “changes” to the RSVCE of 1965 pertain to different textual traditions.

 

[porthos11]

There’s really nothing “Catholic” or “Protestant” about critical editions. These texts are compiled from the best available sources, and are edited according to textual and linguistic, not doctrinal criteria. It’s very hard to insert doctrinal bias into a critical edition, and if anyone tries, he’ll be immediately eaten alive by the academic community. The NA27 is recognized as a standard text by both Catholic and Protestant scholars alike, and virtually all modern New Testaments are translated from the NA series.

 

[TheMese]

Thanks you’ve answered most of my question I think.

However, why are so many of the RSV to RSVCE differences textual?

I have certainly heard of a passage been removed from the critical Septuagint text as ‘an obvious Christian interpolation’, supposedly added by Origen because it was adjudged incredible; I think it was something like ‘king of the cross’ in a Psalm. I can certainly imagine academics going along with this en masse because of rationalistic deduction.

Maybe such reductions could happen with NT critical text.

Is the Nova Vulgata merely the NA27 translated in Latin?

 

[porthos11]

Thanks you’ve answered most of my question I think.

However, why are so many of the RSV to RSVCE differences textual?

The RSV-CE editors’ explanation is that if the textual evidence is equally balanced such that an editorial decision has to be made, the rendition is made according to the Catholic understanding, with the alternate translation in the footnote.

Most English translations do not stick to a single source; sometimes, other sources are consulted.

I have certainly heard of a passage been removed from the critical Septuagint text as ‘an obvious Christian interpolation’, supposedly added by Origen because it was adjudged incredible; I think it was something like ‘king of the cross’ in a Psalm. I can certainly imagine academics going along with this en masse because of rationalistic deduction.

Maybe such reductions could happen with NT critical text.

It might, if future studies unearth overwhelming evidence in favor or against a particular passage. However, in the case of the Greek NT, it’s unlikely, because we have thousands of manuscripts and the majority text appears pretty stable. But of course, who knows? That’s why the NA is already on its 29th edition, I think, although the changes have been quite minor.

Is the Nova Vulgata merely the NA27 translated in Latin?

That, I do not know. I’m not a follower of the Vulgate. Sorry.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Thanks you’ve answered most of my question I think.

However, why are so many of the RSV to RSVCE differences textual?

At least as far as the 1966 UK edition is concerned, some are doctrinal.​

I have certainly heard of a passage been removed from the critical Septuagint text as ‘an obvious Christian interpolation’, supposedly added by Origen because it was adjudged incredible; I think it was something like ‘king of the cross’ in a Psalm. I can certainly imagine academics going along with this en masse because of rationalistic deduction.

Which critical edition of the LXX ? There are several, serving different purposes (just as different editions of the Greek NT serve different purposes).​

Are you referring to this passage:

• Chapter LXXIII.—[The words] “From the wood” have been cut out of Ps. xcvi.
• “And from the ninety-fifth (ninety-sixth) Psalm they have taken away this short saying of the words of David: ‘From the wood.’ For when the passage said, ‘Tell ye among the nations, the Lord hath reigned from the wood,’ they have left, ‘Tell ye among the nations, the Lord hath reigned.’ Now no one of your people has ever been said to have reigned as God and Lord among the nations, with the exception of Him only who was crucified, of whom also the Holy Spirit affirms in the same Psalm that He was raised again, and freed from [the grave], declaring that there is none like Him among the gods of the nations: for they are idols of demons. But I shall repeat the whole Psalm to you, that you may perceive what has been said…"
  ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.lxxiii.html

A note on pp. 154-55 of the English translation of his two Apologies in the Ancient Christian Writers series (Paulist Press 1997) suggests that the text of the psalm was modified by Christian liturgical usage. Another possibility is that it is a marginal note by a Christian that was copied into the text.

The phrase apo to xulou = “from the tree/wood”] does not appear in the 1949 third edition of the LXX (ed. A. Rahlfs), neither does a ligno (with the same meaning) appear in the 1969 Beuron Vulgate (edd. Fischer, Sparks & Thiele). That does not of course mean that it appears in no text of the Psalms whatever, but OTOH there is no reason to expect it to do so: it interrupts the sense of the Psalm, would make no sense in it, would spoil the metre, & there is no reason to suppose it was a part of the text to begin with.

It does however make excellent sense if it is a Christian addition in the light of faith in Christ Crucified. It’s much likelier to appear in a Father; maybe in a lectionary. It appears in the Dies Irae attributed to Thomas of Celano in the 13th century; but that is based on various sources including the Psalms, & is not in itself of great value as a witness to the Vulgate text of the Psalter, let alone the text of the Psalms in the Hebrew Bible; nor does the presence in the Dies Irae of those words tell us anything about the Latin textual tradition of the phrase.

Maybe such reductions could happen with NT critical text.

Is the Nova Vulgata merely the NA27 translated in Latin?

Short answer - no.​

 

[Verbum]

Hi TheMese,

The Nova Vulgata is a revision of the Old Vulgate according to the latest scholarship on both text and meaning. The preface specifies that the old text has been kept intact whenever possible and that the vocabulary and grammar of the Old Vulgate has been preserved. This is in opposition to the “nova interpretatio” translation of the Psalms, published in the 50’s I think, that used classical Latin.

Verbum