How many versions of the Vulgate are there?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RCCDefender
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jerry-Jet said:
Maybe they’re saying that they really think the Nova Vulgata is the best translation from the original languages without directly saying it!
Click to expand...
Could be.

I’d also like to see them withdraw Imprimaturs from some “Catholic” translations and order them to “go back, Jack, do it again”, till they implement the principles of textual criticism per Divino Afflante Spiritu right.
 
Manfred said:
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??
Click to expand...
I think what it means is that translations should be made from the original languages where there is no question about the original’s sense or accuracy. However, when the translators hit obscure/damaged or conflicting texts, they are to refer to the NV for the final decision.

For example. There is a verse in Job (28:4) that has suffered so badly in the Hebrew that there’s really no one correct translation from the original, and the NAB didn’t even bother to translate it, rendering it only as …

In a case like this, LA will require the translators to look at the NV for the conjectural emendation.

Another is Psalm 110:3. If you have an RSV-2CE you will notice it’s different from the RSV-CE. This passage is easily the most obscure in the Psalms and can be translated according to the RSV-CE or RSV-2CE. In this case, LA will require the rendering as given in the NV.
 
porthos11 said:
I think what it means is that translations should be made from the original languages where there is no question about the original’s sense or accuracy. However, when the translators hit obscure/damaged or conflicting texts, they are to refer to the NV for the final decision.

For example. There is a verse in Job (28:4) that has suffered so badly in the Hebrew that there’s really no one correct translation from the original, and the NAB didn’t even bother to translate it, rendering it only as …

In a case like this, LA will require the translators to look at the NV for the conjectural emendation.

Another is Psalm 110:3. If you have an RSV-2CE you will notice it’s different from the RSV-CE. This passage is easily the most obscure in the Psalms and can be translated according to the RSV-CE or RSV-2CE. In this case, LA will require the rendering as given in the NV.
Click to expand...
Makes sense, porthos.

Notice, though, that neither the Clementine nor the NV had gaps such as one finds in the NAB or NJB?
 
Manfred said:
Makes sense, porthos.

Notice, though, that neither the Clementine nor the NV had gaps such as one finds in the NAB or NJB?
Click to expand...
Right. My guess would therefore be that the CV and NV used conjectural emendations or translated according to other manuscripts. Note that the RSV does not have the gaps either, even though the resulting English is somewhat stilted and does not easily fit the context.

This is what I understand from LA. In cases like these, I believe LA calls for the difficult passages to be translated according to the NV, instead of just leaving gaps like what you find in the NAB and JB.
 
tee_eff_em said:
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
Click to expand...
Could you give me some link as to where we can purchase the books?
Or is this not possible?

Is there an Inter-linear of the Neo-Vulgata?
 
Shlomey said:
Could you give me some link as to where we can purchase the books?
Or is this not possible?

Is there an Inter-linear of the Neo-Vulgata?
Click to expand...
you can by the Clementine Vulgate (Biblia Sacra Juxta Vulgatam Clementinam, Michael Tweedale, 2005) at www.lulu.com/content/151121. This edition is approved by CBCW (Bishops Conference of England and Wales). This is the edition I am reading along side my Douay-Rheims Challoner Edition (Baronius Press, Imprimatur James Cardinal Gibbons)

You can also get the 1861 Clementine Vulgate (Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis) edited by by Carolus Vercellone at. churchlatin.com/Books.aspx?BookID=49
I am not sure who gave the imprimatur on this edition. I don’t have it. This also a Facsimile so it’s text may not be too readable.

You can also get the CPDV by Ron Conte OT Volumes 1 and 4 and the Psalms, NT Volumes 1 and 2. His work is excellent, but there is no approval from the Holy See or Bishops Conference which violates Canon 825 of the Code of Canon Law (1983). Mr. Conte has made it clear that wishes not to send his work to the Holy See or a Bishops Conference and willfully chose to ignore 825. *This is not approved by the Church in any way.

The Struttgart Edition can be found on various sites like amazon.com It too isn’t approved by the Catholic Church as it was done by a Protestant organization

The Nova Vulgata or Neo-Vulgate isn’t in print form it is only found at the Vatican’s website.
 
tee_eff_em said:
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
Click to expand...

  1. There’s another, still AFAIK “in progress”, that is intended to record all variant readings - IOW, it’s even larger than the Stuttgart edition, which is a manual edition, & is therefore far less comprehensive than this other one, which devotes a volume or so to each book. 🙂​

    I think there was a second edition of the 1979 Neo-Vulgata in 1982.
 
sacredbible.org/

In the early Church, the Vulgate (the commonly used or widely used edition) was the Greek. Eventually, Latin became the most commonly used language for Bible texts. Prior to Jerome, there were very many different Latin editions of the various books. Jerome did much work to reduce these to fewer editions.

After Jerome, the number of editions, mostly edits of his work, increased.

The 1590 Pope Sixtus V edition sought to make a standard edition of the Bible in Latin, in accord with the decision of Trent to give the Latin Scriptural tradition a special place in the Scriptural life of the Church. This was revised under Pope Clement VIII in 1592, 93, and 98. the 98 edition was the standard Latin edition for many years, available in a number of scholarly edits.

The Neo-Vulgate was approved in 1979 as the typica (standard or reference) edition.

To answer the original question, there are versions of the Bible in Latin, and then there are edits (minor changes to a version). At some times in the history of the Church, the distinction between version and edition has not been clear.

Prior to Jerome there was no standard Latin Vulgate, but many different versions/editions (no clear distinction between versions and editions at that time) and none of these are extant. These are summed up in the phrase vetus latina

Versions:

vetus latina - not extant; numerous versions/editions

Jerome’s Vulgate - not extant

Since we don’t have Jerome’s work as a reference, it is difficult to know if subsequent editions were a new version (very different from past editions) or merely an edit of Jerome’s work.

Sixtine version - did not enter general useage, since it was soon revised by Clement VIII

Clementine version - available in numerous edits

Stuttgart version - NOT an edit of the Vulgate, but a Protestant work; should probably not be called Vulgate since it is not an edit of a commonly used Latin verison of the Bible

Tweedale (2005) - an edit of the Clementine Vulgate
 
Ron_Conte said:
sacredbible.org/

In the early Church, the Vulgate (the commonly used or widely used edition) was the Greek. Eventually, Latin became the most commonly used language for Bible texts. Prior to Jerome, there were very many different Latin editions of the various books. Jerome did much work to reduce these to fewer editions.

After Jerome, the number of editions, mostly edits of his work, increased.

The 1590 Pope Sixtus V edition sought to make a standard edition of the Bible in Latin, in accord with the decision of Trent to give the Latin Scriptural tradition a special place in the Scriptural life of the Church. This was revised under Pope Clement VIII in 1592, 93, and 98. the 98 edition was the standard Latin edition for many years, available in a number of scholarly edits.

The Neo-Vulgate was approved in 1979 as the typica (standard or reference) edition.

To answer the original question, there are versions of the Bible in Latin, and then there are edits (minor changes to a version). At some times in the history of the Church, the distinction between version and edition has not been clear.

Prior to Jerome there was no standard Latin Vulgate, but many different versions/editions (no clear distinction between versions and editions at that time) and none of these are extant. These are summed up in the phrase vetus latina

Versions:

vetus latina - not extant; numerous versions/editions

Jerome’s Vulgate - not extant

Since we don’t have Jerome’s work as a reference, it is difficult to know if subsequent editions were a new version (very different from past editions) or merely an edit of Jerome’s work.

Sixtine version - did not enter general useage, since it was soon revised by Clement VIII

Clementine version - available in numerous edits

Stuttgart version - NOT an edit of the Vulgate, but a Protestant work; should probably not be called Vulgate since it is not an edit of a commonly used Latin verison of the Bible

Tweedale (2005) - an edit of the Clementine Vulgate
Click to expand...
How long before your last two books will be done for the CPDV??? I see that the 1861 is finished along with 1914. Your material is great
 
tobinatorstark said:
How long before your last two books will be done for the CPDV??? I see that the 1861 is finished along with 1914. Your material is great
Click to expand...
I’m working on 1 and 2 Chronicles now. Estimated time of completion is March of 2009.

There are a number of good editions of the Vulgate here:
sacredbible.org/

Also, Maximus Scriptorius at churchlatin.com
is working on a printed facsimile edition of the Leander van Ess (1822-1824) Vulgate which compares the 1590, 92, 93, and 98 editions of the Vulgate. Very useful for study of the Latin Bible.
 
Ron_Conte said:
I’m working on 1 and 2 Chronicles now. Estimated time of completion is March of 2009.

There are a number of good editions of the Vulgate here:
sacredbible.org/

Also, Maximus Scriptorius at churchlatin.com
is working on a printed facsimile edition of the Leander van Ess (1822-1824) Vulgate which compares the 1590, 92, 93, and 98 editions of the Vulgate. Very useful for study of the Latin Bible.
Click to expand...
I had seen this the other day when I was at their site. I have such a vast interest in the Vulgate. I will look for your edition to be complete in March. Is there any chance you are going to put the whole thing into 1 volume??? I seen at lulu.com it is divided into volumes.
 
tobinatorstark said:
I had seen this the other day when I was at their site. I have such a vast interest in the Vulgate. I will look for your edition to be complete in March. Is there any chance you are going to put the whole thing into 1 volume??? I seen at lulu.com it is divided into volumes.
Click to expand...
If I publish my translation in one volume, it would probably be 8.5 x 11" and 10 pt. type. Bible editions that are one small volume use small print and thin pages, but I don’t have that option with my current printer. Also, I prefer larger print and better paper for Sacred Scripture.

In any case, the translation is available free online and is public domain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top