Is the Old Latin Vulgate entirely free of all textual and translational errors?

[Birdmanman]

Reading past threads regarding this topic, I found this quote from the Council of Trent:

"…if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.
…
Moreover, the same Sacred and Holy Synod, - considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic, - ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever. "
(Quote taken from the apparently banned user Yablabo)

1. What is the Old Latin Vulgate Edition referred to here, and/or the editions “as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church”?
2. Do these editions of Scripture currently exist? Or have they been since destroyed or lost with only copies and translations remaining?
3. Am I to understand from these statements that the Old Latin Vulgate Edition of Scripture is entirely free of all textual, translational, and copyist errors? Or am I bound to simply hold it “as sacred and canonical” and authentic, whether or not in reality it does have the type of errors mentioned before (much as an engineer will by necessity work and make decisions with pragmatically certain measurements rather than exactly precise measurements).

Please understand when I say textual, translational, or copyist errors, I do not mean to imply errors made by the original authors of those books of scripture (of which I hold there are none, seeing as they have been inspired by the Holy Spirit), but rather superficial errors made by those copying or translating it.

I believe I have read most, if not all of the relevant threads on CAF regarding my question here, but if there are perhaps a few I missed, or a webpage dealing more directly with this issue, I would be happy to read that as well.

Thanks in advance to anyone who might help me with these questions!

 

[SonCatcher]

I understand that the Vulgate is declared to be free of any doctrinal error. The quotes do not seem to infer anything about translational errors.

 

[Birdmanman]

I understand that the Vulgate is declared to be free of any doctrinal error. The quotes do not seem to infer anything about translational errors.

Thanks so much for responding, SonCatcher!

I also had a simmilar thought, but the word ‘entire’ seems to give me pause:

“the said books entire with all their parts…as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition”

I currently understand this as “We must receive as sacred and canonical everything written in the books of the Bible in the Old Latin Vulgate Edition”. If this reading is correct, can we receive a translation/copyist/textual error as something that is sacred?
I sincerely hope someone will correct my understanding if it is flawed
(and I also sincerely hope my understanding of this is indeed flawed, as it seems troubling to my modern mind to admit that the editor of the Old Latin Vulgate Edition was made to write without any translational/copyist/textual error in a simmilar way that the original writers of Scripture were protected from error, though if this is what is in the mind of the Council of Trent I would surely admit it).

 

[SonCatcher]

Thanks so much for responding, SonCatcher!

I also had a simmilar thought, but the word ‘entire’ seems to give me pause:

“the said books entire with all their parts…as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition”

I currently understand this as “We must receive as sacred and canonical everything written in the books of the Bible in the Old Latin Vulgate Edition”. If this reading is correct, can we receive a translation/copyist/textual error as something that is sacred?
I sincerely hope someone will correct my understanding if it is flawed
(and I also sincerely hope my understanding of this is indeed flawed, as it seems troubling to my modern mind to admit that the editor of the Old Latin Vulgate Edition was made to write without any translational/copyist/textual error in a simmilar way that the original writers of Scripture were protected from error, though if this is what is in the mind of the Council of Trent I would surely admit it).

I think that “entire” likely means unabridged. That is, when you analyze the whole text, it is free of doctrinal error.

Any translational or copyist issues that may have arisen through accident did not affect the doctrine contained therein.

 

[Birdmanman]

I think that “entire” likely means unabridged. That is, when you analyze the whole text, it is free of doctrinal error.

Any translational or copyist issues that may have arisen through accident did not affect the doctrine contained therein.

Thanks again SonCatcher, I hope that is what ‘entire’ means.
Any chance you have more information on my other questions?

"1. What is the Old Latin Vulgate Edition referred to here, and/or the editions “as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church”?

1. Do these editions of Scripture currently exist? Or have they been since destroyed or lost with only copies and translations remaining?"

 

[SonCatcher]

Thanks again SonCatcher, I hope that is what ‘entire’ means.
Any chance you have more information on my other questions?

"1. What is the Old Latin Vulgate Edition referred to here, and/or the editions “as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church”?

1. Do these editions of Scripture currently exist? Or have they been since destroyed or lost with only copies and translations remaining?"

Not really. My best guess is that they were recognizing slight differences due to the aforementioned copy errors and accepting the texts that contained them as equal (since none of the changes resulted in heresy).

I’m sure that most of the editions are still extant. However, they would only be available for academic research (since they were not sent to publishers). Perhaps they will eventually be scanned so they can be studied more broadly but I would not expect anyone to typeset them.

 

[Mystophilus]

1. Am I to understand from these statements that the Old Latin Vulgate Edition of Scripture is entirely free of all textual, translational, and copyist errors? Or am I bound to simply hold it “as sacred and canonical” and authentic, whether or not in reality it does have the type of errors mentioned before (much as an engineer will by necessity work and make decisions with pragmatically certain measurements rather than exactly precise measurements).

It is an imperfect translation, and acknowledged as such. One example of this is Rom 5:12, where Jerome’s choice of verb tenses led to people like Augustine getting the wrong picture of Original Sin, and the Church having to re-explain it to people who were reading the natural sense of a Latin message rather than the natural sense of the Greek original.

 

[ProVobis]

Or am I bound to simply hold it “as sacred and canonical” and authentic, whether or not in reality it does have the type of errors mentioned before (much as an engineer will by necessity work and make decisions with pragmatically certain measurements rather than exactly precise measurements).

Yes, although it can be debated that the Novus Vulgata now supercedes the Clementine version, which the Council of Trent tried to standardize for everyone.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Ron Conte is a pro on this, you might want to send him a message.

 

[Birdmanman]

Ron Conte is a pro on this, you might want to send him a message.

Thanks for the suggestion, I’ll see what I can do!

 

[Birdmanman]

Ron Conte is a pro on this, you might want to send him a message.

Actually, it looks like his PM inbox is full or something as I cannot private message him. Here are some excerpts from his posts on this topic:
These are all posts by Ron Conte in various threads he’s posted in, I don’t know enough to either confirm or deny the validity or soundness of his postings, if anywhere in his postings anything is said that contradicts Church Teaching, his contradictory posting should be ignored and denied, again,** I do not in anyway endorse, teach, support, or hold as true or valid the following posts by Ron Conte:**

There was no official Latin Bible at the time of the Council of Trent. The Pope Sixtus V and Pope Clement VIII version came later. The Council was not referring to any particular edition, nor were they asserting that a particular edition was free from typos and translation errors. They were referring to the Latin scriptural tradition, which goes back to the earliest days of the Church.

The books and all the parts of those books that are in the Latin scriptural tradition are sacred and canonical, according to the Council.

In the early Church, the books of the Bible were translated into Latin, in many cases probably from manuscripts that no longer exist. Also, the Latin texts have been used in the Church by the Living Tradition, so they have stood the test of time; they have been vetted by constant long usage. So having some translations based on the Latin is useful.

Also, in my opinion, some of the books of the NT were written in Latin: Mark, and the letter to the Romans.

Inerrancy is based on inspiration, and editors, translators, printers, copyists are not inspired. However, the Spirit protects the transmission of Sacred Scripture as a whole (not in each and every edition and verse, but overall) so that no truths are lost and no falsehoods are added.

It is not faithful and reasonable to interpret the phrase ‘all their parts,’ infallibly taught by the Council of Trent, as referring only to the Deuterocanonical parts of two books. The phrase refers to the entire Canon, and the term ‘all’ by no stretch of the imagination cannot refer to only two out of 73 books.

If a scholar can drop any phrase or verse from the Bible, without exception, on the basis of scholarship, then faith would be deprived of its certitude which is based on the authority of the Word of God. For then every verse would be suspect as being possibly a verse that scholars will drop from the text at a later time.

And this process of dropping verses has only begun in recent times (beginning in the 20th century). This implies that for nearly two thousand years (!!!) the Church was teaching from a Canon of Scripture that contained non-canonical non-inspired verses (the verses and parts of verses that were later dropped), and so the Church was teaching from a non-canonical source.

Therefore, the only faithful and reasonable understanding of ‘all their parts’ must include all of the verses and parts of verses of all the books in the Canon of Scripture.

The Second Vatican Council also taught this same teaching, that Sacred Scripture is inspired in all its parts:

“For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”

The interpretation suggested in some posts above, that ‘all their parts’ refers solely to the deuterocanonical books and parts is refuted by the Second Vatican Council, when it says ‘of both the Old and New Testaments’. There is no deuterocanonical material in the NT. Therefore, Vatican II interpreted Trent as referring to the whole Bible, when Trent said that the sacred canon includes all the books with all their parts.

But many Catholics will set aside a definitive teaching of the Magisterium if there is a common or a majority opinion to the contrary.

So again, based on the teaching of the Council of Trent, and also on the interpretation of the words of the Council of Trent by the Second Vatican Council, I assert that all of the verses and parts of verses in Sacred Scripture, as found in the old Latin Vulgate, are part of the sacred canon of the Bible, and cannot be dropped from the text on the basis of any scholarly considerations whatsoever.

There may be translations error or editing errors, since the translator and the editor are not working under inspiration. Faithful and reasonable Catholics may legitimately disagree about the proper interpretation. But the idea that any errors on any subject are found in Scripture has been condemned by the Magisterium.

 

[po18guy]

It is an imperfect translation, and acknowledged as such. One example of this is Rom 5:12, where Jerome’s choice of verb tenses led to people like Augustine getting the wrong picture of Original Sin, and the Church having to re-explain it to people who were reading the natural sense of a Latin message rather than the natural sense of the Greek original.

Except that the Greek might have missed the nuances of the original Aramaic of Matthew.

 

[ProVobis]

Except that the Greek might have missed the nuances of the original Aramaic of Matthew.

Good point.

 

[po18guy]

Good point.

Simply put, if one of the early Church fathers, a fellow member of CAF, or anyone is confused by a given interpretation, it is because they are not listening to the Church.

 

[Ron_Conte]

1. What is the Old Latin Vulgate Edition referred to here, and/or the editions “as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church”?
2. Do these editions of Scripture currently exist? Or have they been since destroyed or lost with only copies and translations remaining?
3. Am I to understand from these statements that the Old Latin Vulgate Edition of Scripture is entirely free of all textual, translational, and copyist errors?

My opinion on these questions:

1. The Council of Trent was referring to the Latin Scriptural tradition, not to any one particular edition. At the time, there was no official Latin edition of the Bible. The Sistine and Clementine editions came later.
2. The Latin Scriptural tradition has been preserved, but it is not any one edition.
3. No, the editions of the Bible, extant, in any language are not free from editorial or translation or copyist errors. The original authors of Scripture wrote under inspiration. But subsequent editors, translators, and copyists do not act under inspiration, and so they are not inerrant.

God preserves the truths of Sacred Scripture, despite the errors in particular editions, by His providence and grace, just as He preserves the truths of Sacred Tradition by His providence and grace. Though the transmission of Scripture and Tradition from generation to generation occurs by means of us poor sinners, God acts so as to keep any truths from being lost or corrupted in the Sacred Deposit of Faith.

 

[Birdmanman]

Hi Ron, thanks for bringing in your (name removed by moderator)ut!

Could you tell me how you came up with your answer to 3 (below)?

My opinion on these questions:

1. The Latin Scriptural tradition has been preserved, but it is not any one edition.
2. No, the editions of the Bible, extant, in any language are not free from editorial or translation or copyist errors. The original authors of Scripture wrote under inspiration. But subsequent editors, translators, and copyists do not act under inspiration, and so they are not inerrant.

My worry is that looking at Trent, we are commanded to receive and hold the Latin scriptural tradition (in your understanding) as “sacred and canonical” and “authentic” “entire with all their parts”. Do you have any reason for interpreting “all their parts” as “most of the work, but not every single aspect and word of the work”? (If I am misrepresenting your interpretation please tell me).

Alternately; if we are only to ‘receive as sacred and canonical [and authentic]’ the bible from the Latin scriptural tradition, and the Latin scriptural tradition actually does have translation/copyist error, then could the Church be infallibly binding us to hold an error as authentic and sacred? (I am not saying the Church can teach error; I am asking if the Church can teach us to hold error, without teaching the error as true itself; I have a feeling that She cannot do so because wouldn’t the Saints, even after witnessing Truth in the beatific vision, still be bound by The Church’s infallible authority? and could someone who has witnessed what is true still morally hold the false as sacred?)

I’m not saying yours is the right or wrong interpretation, I don’t know enough to say that. I just want to understand your reasoning so that I can know how comfortable or accepting I should feel about those arguments that say “there was a copyist/translation error”.

Thanks for your time

 

[Ron_Conte]

There are several different papal documents that teach the doctrine that the inerrancy of Scripture is based on inspiration, for example:

Pope Leo XIII: “But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred… For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican.” (Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).

Pope St. Pius X condemned the idea that “Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.” (Lamentabili Sane, ‘Syllabus of Errors,’ n. 11).

The Magisterium teaches that the sacred authors wrote under inspiration, and that inerrancy is due to inspiration. Also the Canon of Scripture is closed, so no one who copies, edits, or translates the Bible subsequent to its close works under inspiration. But in addition, if you have ever looked at ancient manuscripts, copyist errors are many and very noticeable, for example:
bible-researcher.com/bobbiensis.html

All their parts does not mean “most but not all”. Scripture is an expression of truth by the Holy Spirit. All the parts of Scripture, even the smallest part, means every assertion, on every topic, even the smallest assertion. It does not mean every letter, literally. Scripture is Truth – not these exact letters, in this exact order, in this exact language. So Trent is saying that all the assertions of Scripture are true. This does not preclude copyist errors.

The Sistine edition of the Latin Bible was published subsequent to Trent, by Pope Sixtus V. He permitted changes to this edition in the case of copyist or typographical errors. Many corrections were made to his edition by a subsequent Pope, Clement VIII. So this type of error can occur.

No, the Church never requires us to believe error. Infallible teachings are certainly without error. The Magisterium teaches either infallibly or non-infallibly. Some magisterial teachings are infallible and irreformable; other magisterial teachings are non-infallible and non-irreformable.

Trent was not binding us to believe copying, editing, or translating errors, but only the truths of Sacred Scripture. Trent did not say that ONLY the Latin text is inerrant. The Council was defining the Canon of Scripture by the Latin Scriptural tradition: all those books, with all their parts, are the Canon (in any language).

 

[Mystophilus]

Except that the Greek might have missed the nuances of the original Aramaic of Matthew.

Er, neither Romans 5:12 nor Original Sin is found in Matthew. You are talking about something entirely unrelated to my comment.

 

[Birdmanman]

Thanks to all for your help, I now think I have a new way of looking at this teaching from Trent;
Before you read my response: Please keep in mind this is my own opinion, subject to change when necessary, and it should not be accepted as true or fact or a proper understanding of Trent unless you yourself know for certain that it is in agreement with the Church’s understanding, I am not trying to teach the following as truth but rather explain my understanding so that it might be corrected where it is wrong, given nuance where it is dull, or improved:

“…if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition;…”

I now read this as, 'we should accept, as sacred and canonical, the said books of Sacred Scripture entire with all their parts, as they (books of Sacred Scripture) have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they (the books of Sacred Scripture) are contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition, but we need not accept as sacred and canonical those things that have been used to be read in the Catholic Church that are translational or copyist errors of Sacred Scripture, nor does the old Latin Vulgate edition contain entirely and only Sacred Scripture, but also perhaps contains, along with portions of Sacred Scripture, translational and copyist errors of the same Scripture’

Likewise:
"Moreover, the same Sacred and Holy Synod, - considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic, - ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever. "

because from one definition I have read, authentic can mean “authoritative”, I now interpret to mean:
’the old and vulgate edition of Sacred Scripture is to be held as authoritative (or authentic?) when we discuss it in public lectures, disputations, sermons, and expositions, and we should not reject it, wherever it accurately and authentically is an actual edition of Sacred Scripture, and not where it (perhaps) is an edition of a copyist or translational error of Scripture’

That is, when the “old and vulgate edition” is an edition of the Sacred Books of Scripture, it is to be held as authentic, but where it is not actually an edition of the Sacred Books of Scripture, but instead is an edition (in part) of translational or copyist errors wrongly made from Scripture, it is not to be considered authentic, for then it is not actually an “edition of the sacred books”, since the sacred books do not contain error.

Sort of like the “No True Scotsman” fallacy, where we say that, because someone has done something bad, he cannot be a ‘True Scotsman’ for all ‘True Scotsman’ are entirely good; with this reading from Trent, an “edition of Sacred Scripture” is only an “edition of Sacred Scripture” when it is actually the properly and accurately copied and translated meaning of Sacred Scripture, and is not an “edition of Sacred Scripture”. So where the ‘old and vulgate’ edition is accurate, it is an edition of Scripture, but where it is inaccurate do to copyist or translational error, it is not an edition of Scripture, but an edition of something else.

Does this make sense? Is this understanding acceptable in light of Church teaching? Do you think or know if this is an accurate portrayel of what those taking part in the Council of Trent meant when they wrote this?