How many versions of the Vulgate are there?

[RCCDefender]

I posited a question on a lady’s blog a while back. She had refered to a verse in the Vulgate as was referenced in her Dakes Commentary. I looked up the verse and it was different, so I commented about it. Here is part of her response:

However, I am not sure which Vulgate Dake was refering to, since there was a Vulgate long before Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, which is a (some say purposesly) corrupt “revision” of the old Vulgates.

And yes, she is vehemenately anti-Catholic.

 

[tee_eff_em]

I know of 3 major versions of the Vulgate:

1. 
   *]The Clementine Vulgate – This is the edition most familiar to pre-Vatican II Catholics, and was the official version used by the Church for nearly 400 years.
   *]The Stuttgart Vulgate – A scholarly attempt to return to Jerome’s original text, following 100’s of years of revisions, copy-errors, et cetera.
   *]The Neo-Vulgate (Nova Vulgata) – The current official text of the Church since 1979.
   
   While your correspondent is correct, that there were Latin scriptures prior to St Jerome – Many and irregular versions and translations (which is the reason St Jerome was charged to translate a new and reliable version) – I do not know that any was ever called “Vulgate”. Today these scriptures are typically referred to as the *Vetus Latina *(Old Latin).
   
   At least, that is my understanding.
   
   tee

 

[tee_eff_em]

1. 
   *]The Clementine Vulgate – This is the edition most familiar to pre-Vatican II Catholics, and was the official version used by the Church for nearly 400 years.
   *]The Stuttgart Vulgate – A scholarly attempt to return to Jerome’s original text, following 100’s of years of revisions, copy-errors, et cetera.
   *]The Neo-Vulgate (Nova Vulgata) – The current official text of the Church since 1979.

1. 
   BTW: Electronically
   
   The Clementine Vulgate can be found at the Clementine Text Project
   
   The Stuttgart can be found just about anywhere else on the internet (eg at this site)
   
   The *Nova Vulgata *is on the web at the Vatican.
   
   All three may also be purchased in hardcopy from various sources.
   
   tee

 

[Manfred]

BTW: Electronically

The Clementine Vulgate can be found at the Clementine Text Project

The Stuttgart can be found just about anywhere else on the internet (eg at this site)

The *Nova Vulgata *is on the web at the Vatican.

All three may also be purchased in hardcopy from various sources.

tee

Tee,

You have done an admirable job not only of distinguishing among the three known editions of the Vulgate but also in providing links to each of them. And my understanding of SAINT Jerome and the Vulgate vs. the Vetus Latina agrees with yours.

So much for the misinformation on that anti-Catholic blog!

Manfred

 

[tee_eff_em]

Thanks, Manfred.

BTW, I’d also meant to say explicitly: While the Stuttgart Vulgate may be valuable as a scholarly work, it was never used in Catholic liturgy.

RCCDefender: May I ask what the verse in question was?

tee

 

[RCCDefender]

Thanks, Manfred.

BTW, I’d also meant to say explicitly: While the Stuttgart Vulgate may be valuable as a scholarly work, it was never used in Catholic liturgy.

RCCDefender: May I ask what the verse in question was?

tee

1 John 5:7

 

[Ron_Conte]

I don’t think it is correct to say that there are three versions of the Vulgate. I’m not use how one would even count the number of versions or editions.

There is the Latin Bible prior to Jerome, of which little is extant, called the Vetus Latina. This was not one version, but many different variant manuscripts. It is not generally called ‘Vulgate’ but is its precursor.

Jerome’s Vulgate is not extant in its entirety, but only in numerous manuscripts which have been edited much since the time of Jerome. Jerome’s work with the Bible was complex. He translated some books, and merely edited others. He sometimes worked from Latin source texts, and other times from Greek (and later Hebrew) texts.

There are a number of different Vulgate editions of the Bible between the time of Jerome and that of Pope Sixtus V.

Pope Sixtus V completed (in 1590) work begun under earlier Popes, spurred by the Council of Trent, of a supposedly definitive edition of the Latin Vulgate Bible. Over 6,000 manuscripts were consulted for this 1590 edition of the Vulgate. Pope Sixtus V forbid the text to be changed. But only a few years later, Pope Clement VIII amended the 1590 edition, publishing three slightly different editions, in 1592, 1593, 1598. This later edition is generally referred to as the Clementine Vulgate.

There have been a number of prominent edits of the Clementine Vulgate, such as the 1861 Vercellone edition and the Hetzenauer editions from the early 1900’s. Leander van Ess preserved all four Sixtus V and Clement VIII editions in his edition of the Latin Vulgate which notes the differences between the editions in various footnotes.

The edition linked to above at sourceforge is the 2006 Tweedale edition, a lightly edited edition of the Clementine Vulgate.

The Neo-Vulgate is not really in the Scriptural tradition of the Vulgate. It follows the Hebrew and Greek textual variations more often than the Latin ones. It reads more like a loose paraphrase translation of the Hebrew and Greek into Latin, rather than a critical edition of the various Latin source texts.

Ron

 

[tee_eff_em]

1 John 5:7

Yes, I rather guessed as much, after a blogsearch.google.com . That verse does differ between the Clementine Vulgate:
Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo : Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus : et hi tres unum sunt.
and the Stuttgart:
quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant
as well as similar differences among various English language editions.

The verse does seem to be a deal-breaker for some folks, as is evidenced by at least one website devoted to it. :whacky:

tee

 

[Manfred]

I don’t think it is correct to say that there are three versions of the Vulgate. I’m not use how one would even count the number of versions or editions.

There is the Latin Bible prior to Jerome, of which little is extant, called the Vetus Latina. This was not one version, but many different variant manuscripts. It is not generally called ‘Vulgate’ but is its precursor.

Jerome’s Vulgate is not extant in its entirety, but only in numerous manuscripts which have been edited much since the time of Jerome. Jerome’s work with the Bible was complex. He translated some books, and merely edited others. He sometimes worked from Latin source texts, and other times from Greek (and later Hebrew) texts.

There are a number of different Vulgate editions of the Bible between the time of Jerome and that of Pope Sixtus V.

Pope Sixtus V completed (in 1590) work begun under earlier Popes, spurred by the Council of Trent, of a supposedly definitive edition of the Latin Vulgate Bible. Over 6,000 manuscripts were consulted for this 1590 edition of the Vulgate. Pope Sixtus V forbid the text to be changed. But only a few years later, Pope Clement VIII amended the 1590 edition, publishing three slightly different editions, in 1592, 1593, 1598. This later edition is generally referred to as the Clementine Vulgate.

There have been a number of prominent edits of the Clementine Vulgate, such as the 1861 Vercellone edition and the Hetzenauer editions from the early 1900’s. Leander van Ess preserved all four Sixtus V and Clement VIII editions in his edition of the Latin Vulgate which notes the differences between the editions in various footnotes.

The edition linked to above at sourceforge is the 2006 Tweedale edition, a lightly edited edition of the Clementine Vulgate.

The Neo-Vulgate is not really in the Scriptural tradition of the Vulgate. It follows the Hebrew and Greek textual variations more often than the Latin ones. It reads more like a loose paraphrase translation of the Hebrew and Greek into Latin, rather than a critical edition of the various Latin source texts.

Ron

Ron,

True there are a bazillion manuscripts of the “Vulgate”, but what most of us can reasonably access, either online or even through hard copy, are the three listed, viz, the Clementine, the Stuttgart, the Nova Vulgata. And the Vetus Latina manuscripts are not readily available, nor do I suppose is there any widespread demand for them.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Ron,

True there are a bazillion manuscripts of the “Vulgate”, but what most of us can reasonably access, either online or even through hard copy, are the three listed, viz, the Clementine, the Stuttgart, the Nova Vulgata. And the Vetus Latina manuscripts are not readily available, nor do I suppose is there any widespread demand for them.

I don’t consider the Stuttgart edition to be a major version.
The term Vulgate refers to a version is common useage in the Church, which would disqualify both the Stuttgart and the Nova Vulgata.
So that leaves us with Vetus Latina (not really a single version, though),
and Jerome’s Vulgate (not extant in its original form), and the Clementine version (and its variants).

Ron

 

[DaveBj]

Are the various “Vetus Latina” versions the same as what are referred to in some commentaries as the “Itala” versions? That seems to be what they are talking about, at any rate–pre-Jerome Latin translations.

DaveBj

 

[Manfred]

Are the various “Vetus Latina” versions the same as what are referred to in some commentaries as the “Itala” versions? That seems to be what they are talking about, at any rate–pre-Jerome Latin translations.

DaveBj

I believe this to be the case.

 

[Manfred]

I don’t consider the Stuttgart edition to be a major version.
The term Vulgate refers to a version is common useage in the Church, which would disqualify both the Stuttgart and the Nova Vulgata.
So that leaves us with Vetus Latina (not really a single version, though),
and Jerome’s Vulgate (not extant in its original form), and the Clementine version (and its variants).

Ron

Ron,

Why do you not consider the Stuttgart edition to be a major version? Is it because it was never used liturgically? Is it because it is featured on many Protestant web sites (Crosswalk, Bible Gateway) and thus the product of non-Catholic scholarship? I thought this was the one started in 1917 by the Benedictines, under the directive of Pius X(?).

More thoughts, please.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Ron,

Why do you not consider the Stuttgart edition to be a major version? Is it because it was never used liturgically? Is it because it is featured on many Protestant web sites (Crosswalk, Bible Gateway) and thus the product of non-Catholic scholarship? I thought this was the one started in 1917 by the Benedictines, under the directive of Pius X(?).

Kraft writes about the Stuttgart edition here:
le.ac.uk/elh/grj1/linksa.html

It is an eclectic edit of the Latin Bible done in the mid-1970’s. It is not based on the Clementine Vulgate. Nor is it the edition started in 1917, which became the Neo-Vulgate. It is a Protestant edition, of the Bible in Latin, done by the German Bible Society. It has not been used by the faithful liturgically. It has not been approved by the Catholic Church.

The only reason that it has become popular is that it has spread over the internet on numerous web sites, many of which claim that this is Jerome’s Bible. It is no such thing.

Ron

 

[Manfred]

Kraft writes about the Stuttgart edition here:
le.ac.uk/elh/grj1/linksa.html

It is an eclectic edit of the Latin Bible done in the mid-1970’s. It is not based on the Clementine Vulgate. Nor is it the edition started in 1917, which became the Neo-Vulgate. It is a Protestant edition, of the Bible in Latin, done by the German Bible Society. It has not been used by the faithful liturgically. It has not been approved by the Catholic Church.

The only reason that it has become popular is that it has spread over the internet on numerous web sites, many of which claim that this is Jerome’s Bible. It is no such thing.

Ron

Ron,

Obviously I had confused the revision of the Vulgate begun in 1907 with the Stuttgart. I’ve seen the Stuttgart on several web sites, and it spelling of names and lack of punctuation always left me cold. Somewhere, though, I had the impression it was a worthwhile text in that it was more like the Clementine (purged of its glosses, though) than the Nova Vulgata. And, yes, I am aware that it was NEVER approved for Catholic liturgical use. I can see where such a text wouldn’t get much concern from Protestants, who were never proponents of the Vulgate, and swear by the original languages.

Your statement about not merging the various scriptural traditions has me thinking now, as the eclectic principle it leaves too much judgement to the translator as to which tradition he “thinks” is closest to the “original”.

Thanks, once again, for your insight.

 

[Manfred]

The Neo-Vulgate is not really in the Scriptural tradition of the Vulgate. It follows the Hebrew and Greek textual variations more often than the Latin ones. It reads more like a loose paraphrase translation of the Hebrew and Greek into Latin, rather than a critical edition of the various Latin source texts.

Ron

Ron,

Next thing you’ll be telling us is that the Novus Ordo Mass is not in the glorious tradition of the venerable Tridentine Mass.

Oh, wait - you’re right; regrettably, it’s NOT!

 

[Ron_Conte]

Yes, you’re right. Some reform is needed there.

Arinze is pushing for vernacular liturgical texts to conform more to the Latin. But I’m not the only one who is critical of the approval of the Neo Vulgate as the base point of reference for Scripture translations. I’d like to see the Vatican switch to an updated edit of the Clementine Vulate. My edit would be nice

Ron

 

[tee_eff_em]

But I’m not the only one who is critical of the approval of the Neo Vulgate as the base point of reference for Scripture translations.

Has the Church so declared?

I thought the Church wanted scriptures to be translated from the original languages, rather than passing through Latin? As, indeed, I thought the *Nova Vulgata *was the official Latin language translation of the the scriptures, from the original tongues? I confess I am ignorant in this regard, and would welcome correction if I am mistaken.

I also confess, I have not studied the two editions side by side to prefer one over the other. (But I prefer either to the Stuttgart)

tee

 

[Manfred]

Has the Church so declared?

I thought the Church wanted scriptures to be translated from the original languages, rather than passing through Latin? As, indeed, I thought the *Nova Vulgata *was the official Latin language translation of the the scriptures, from the original tongues? I confess I am ignorant in this regard, and would welcome correction if I am mistaken.

I also confess, I have not studied the two editions side by side to prefer one over the other. (But I prefer either to the Stuttgart)

tee

As much as I’d love to see Liturgiam Authenticam really implemented (sorry, Ignatius’ RSV-2CE does not qualify), I must admit I am a bit confused that it requires Scripture translations FOR LITURGICAL USE to be from the original languages, yet wants these to conform to the Nova Vulgata wherever the traditions differ. HOW can this be??

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Maybe they’re saying that they really think the Nova Vulgata is the best translation from the original languages without directly saying it!