Isn’t the Nova Vulgata now the official Bible of the Church?Is Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, which is the official Bible of the Church, based on the Masoretic Text?
It seems to align more closely with the Masoretic Text, rather than the Septuagint.
The Latin Scriptural tradition predates the extant Masoretic texts, which are also later than Jerome. The Vulgate is based on the work done by many unknown Christians in the early Church who translated various books of the Bible into Latin from manuscripts that are no longer extant. They undoubtedly worked from texts in various languages, especially Greek (since Greek was the ‘vulgate’ or common text before the Latin Vulgate).Is Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, which is the official Bible of the Church, based on the Masoretic Text?
It seems to align more closely with the Masoretic Text, rather than the Septuagint.
Is Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, based on the Masoretic Text?
I don’t think work had even started on the Masoretic Text at the time of Jerome’s Vulgate translation.It seems to align more closely with the Masoretic Text, rather than the Septuagint.
catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202bt.aspwhich is the official Bible of the Church
There was a time when the Vulgate could be described as an “official” translation of Scripture for the Latin rite of the Church, but not the whole Church. It also never superseded the original language versions in authority (a point Pius XII made in Divino Afflante Spiritu21). But while the Vulgate in its latest edition—the “Neo-Vulgate” promulgated by John Paul II—has a privileged position based on its use in ecclesiastical documents, the law has changed such that there is no “official” translation of Scripture for the Latin rite.
This has nothing to do with various translations in different languages for example the Douay-Rheims. The Church has approved the Vulgate in Latin as authentic. Of course the original texts are those inspired. English is not one of those languages.The Vulgate is approved via decree of the council of Trent.
“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.”
The link provided I find appalling. I use both the Clementine Vulgate and the Douay-Rheims. Occasionally I do use something other than those 2. I really don’t agree with Jimmy Akin’s POV. He seems too biased on the RSV-CE. I personally don’t care for it but I would however use it for comparative analysis purposes as I do with the NAB, JB and the KJV in addition to reading the Clementine Vulgate, Ronald Knox Translation, Confraternity edition(when I have to chance to read it) and the Douay-Rheims - Challoner text. I prefer to take advice from a better qualified apologist.I don’t think work had even started on the Masoretic Text at the time of Jerome’s Vulgate translation.
catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202bt.asp
Personally, I think that the one he worked on was a proto-Masoretic Hebrew text (the Masoretic Hebrew coming out much later, somewhere during the 7th-11th centuries).Is Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, which is the official Bible of the Church, based on the Masoretic Text?
It seems to align more closely with the Masoretic Text, rather than the Septuagint.
Akin seems to have a negative point of view towards traditional views and texts. I just prefer to here from an apologist who relate to both sides of the spectrum. Understanding the persons concern for the traditional texts and traditional views of both pre and post Vatican II and also understanding the concern for the “original” manuscript text and post Vatican II beliefs. While I am not a traditional Catholic as what some would call a traditional Catholic. I respect traditional views and more modern views. He just seems to biased on one point of view. Not that he isn’t qualified, but I just need someone who sees both ends and he just in my opinion doesn’t see on side of the spectrumtobinatorstark–
I don’t think the RSV-CE is Akin’s favored translation. If I remember correctly, he is a fan of the ESV and wishes there were an edition with the deuterocanon. I have no doubt that Jimmy Akin would be criticized by some posters on this board for favoring “Protestant” Bible translations and commentaries.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by “a better qualified apologist”? Do you simply mean an apologist you find more reliable and consistently right, or is there some specific qualification that Akin lacks?
I do wish Akin would have cited a source (or explained further) when he wrote, “The law has changed such that there is no “official” translation of Scripture for the Latin rite.”
I won’t conceal that I think English translations from original-language texts are superior for study to English translations from Latin texts. I know that this thread is not about that, though, so I won’t derail it by elaborating further.