Latin Versions of the Bible

[zach_dunn]

What is the general opinion here of Latin versions of the Bible and English translations of Latin Bibles? I think many people would not like them because Latin isn’t one of the “original” language that the Bible was written . . . what do you guys think of them?

Also, does anyone like the idea of a Latin interlinear Bible? Are there any in print today? Or would this whole thought be pretty pointless?

 

[Canto]

I think the Nova Vulgata is the best bible ever!

The English Douay Rheims (1582) and Confaternity (1941-1969) are my favourite translations.

In reading them I find many passages that are translated differently in some modern translations though the old ones are valid translations of the Greek/Hebrew. I also like the old more theological terms like blasphemy, perdition, concupisence, and just instead of righteous etc.

Also the notes defend Catholic doctrine more and there is less of the silly modern NAB NJB ‘Mary never said the Magnificat,’ ‘St Matthew didn’t write his Gospel though the fathers say so’ type notes.

A Latin interlinear could be good for chanting the Psalms, otherwise I don’t see much use if there is a literal English translation. There is a bible that has the Clementine Vulgate in one column and the Challoner Douay Rheims in the other.

 

[Bible_Reader]

Many people like Latin Bibles. The question of *which *Latin Bible is another matter – that often leads to incredibly flaming threads!

In terms of scholarship, early Vulgate manuscripts provide useful textual witnesses that can help clarify otherwise obscure Hebrew, and also provide useful information about the history of interpretation and understanding of Scripture.

A critical edition of the Vulgate was published by the German Bible Society (the “Stuttgart Vulgate”), although some here dislike it because it included both Catholic and Protestant participation.

The “Clementine Vulgate” (which varies depending on which version you purchase) is a popular choice for many traditional Catholics, and Baronius Press has published a diglot edition with the Douay-Rheims-Challoner. The best free online version (with lots of tools) is here. Another advantage is that this edition is in the public domain. Critics point out that the translation is neither Jerome’s nor particularly current.

The “Nova Vulgata” is the current Vatican-approved text; because it was approved directly by the Holy See, some people like it (thus the Navarre Bible includes the Nova Vulgata along with the RSV-CE edition). Some critics claim that it is too loose in places, and other critics claim it is inferior in scholarship to the best German, French, and English translations.

I find the diglot with the New Testament “Nova Vulgate” and NA27 Greek text quite useful and regularly use it (“Novum Testamentum Graece Et Latine”)

Quite a bit of Bible software has Latin Bibles – I primarily use Logos software and have several Vulgates (linked to Latin and Vulgate dictionaries).

I haven’t seen a printed interlinear Vulgate, but an interactive interlinear version is available from Perseus.

Having said all that, I must give my personal view – that interlinear Bibles are not good for learning a foreign language. Further, the meaning of words in any language are determined in part by context, so the whole idea of an interlinear is pretty misleading. Finally, Latin uses many grammatical markers that can not be easily translated into English, so Latin seems particularly ill-suited to interlinears.

Whichever Bible you use, I wish you success in your studies.

 

[John7]

Here’s another interlinear, but its just in kindle, no print. Only $4 but you’d need the reader

Interlinear Latin Vulgate (New Testament Bible) (Kindle Edition)

amazon.com/Interlinear-Latin-Vulgate-Testament-ebook/dp/B001KU791W/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=books&qid=1274155625&sr=1-1

 

[diggerdomer]

What is the general opinion here of Latin versions of the Bible and English translations of Latin Bibles? I think many people would not like them because Latin isn’t one of the “original” language that the Bible was written . . . what do you guys think of them?

Also, does anyone like the idea of a Latin interlinear Bible? Are there any in print today? Or would this whole thought be pretty pointless?

Newer vernacular translations have the benefit of the immense scholarship subsequent to the use of the Latin language as a vernacular. Your point about original languages is very important to consider. I think the NAB, NRSV, NJB, and RSV are the best.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I believe that Mark and Romans were both written in Latin originally.

But I also think that there is too much emphasis on ‘original languages’ and on the ‘original manuscripts’. By interpreting any version or edition of Scripture, in any language, in accord with Tradition and Magisterium, we can understand the truths of the Word of God, even without knowing Hebrew and Greek.

The Tweedale edition of the Clementine Vulgate is a good modern edit of the Clementine Vulgate.

 

[diggerdomer]

I believe that Mark and Romans were both written in Latin originally.

The vast majority of Catholic scholars don’t. Actually, I don’t know of ANY Catholic scholar who does think that…do you? Thanks for any info, I’d be interested to learn.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The vast majority of Catholic scholars don’t. Actually, I don’t know of ANY Catholic scholar who does think that…do you? Thanks for any info, I’d be interested to learn.

There is a note in the preface to Mark: “Baronius and others say, that the original was written in Latin” in the Challoner Douai (e.g. the 1899 and 1914 editions).

The most ancient manuscripts of Mark are from Africa, where, according to Jerome, Mark went to preach the Gospel after writing the Gospel, and were tradition tells us Mark was martyred. And those manuscripts lack the ending, which further supports the age of those manuscripts, and that they are a testimony to Mark’s original.

I would also argue that, since Mark was writing for the Christians of Rome, he would write in the language of the common people of Rome which was Latin. Certainly, the scholars of Rome also knew Greek, but the converts were mainly not scholars, and so Latin was their language.

Concerning the letter to the Romans, the line in which Tertius states that he wrote the epistle indicates that the letter was probably written in Latin. Paul, trained as a Pharisee, knew Hebrew and Aramaic, and even Greek (as we learn in Acts). But since the Romans conquered and occupied Israel, Latin would not be a language preferred by the Jews. Tertius is a Latin name (third), and it also fits with the starkness of Roman thinking for a man to name his son ‘third’. So Tertius wrote the letter to the Romans in Latin, translating from Paul’s Greek, perhaps, or Aramaic.

 

[diggerdomer]

There is a note in the preface to Mark: “Baronius and others say, that the original was written in Latin” in the Challoner Douai (e.g. the 1899 and 1914 editions).

Ok, I guess I should clarify. Is there any teaching in the last century (or so) that claims original Latin? The Church has learned so much about Scripture in the last century, it’s almost pointless to simply and uncritically refer to things from the 19th or early 20th century without considering subsequent scholarship and magisterial teaching.

I would also argue that, since Mark was writing for the Christians of Rome, he would write in the language of the common people of Rome which was Latin.

How do you know that? Latin inscriptions on Pope’s tombs don’t appear until the 3rd century, so it sure seems as though Greek was still the common tongue by and large in the empire in the 1st century.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Ok, I guess I should clarify. Is there any teaching in the last century (or so) that claims original Latin? The Church has learned so much about Scripture in the last century, it’s almost pointless to simply and uncritically refer to things from the 19th or early 20th century without considering subsequent scholarship and magisterial teaching.

I disagree with the view (speaking in general) that recent scholarship has more weight than older scholarship. Modern Biblical scholars have committed some serious errors that scholars in past times generally did not commit.

And the question as to what language a book was written in is not a teaching of the Church; it is not a matter of faith and morals, so it would not fall under any magisterial teaching. Also, I know of no particular recent scholarly ‘discovery’ that would make an older opinion on this topic obsolete.

How do you know that? Latin inscriptions on Pope’s tombs don’t appear until the 3rd century, so it sure seems as though Greek was still the common tongue by and large in the empire in the 1st century.

I know from studying Tacitus, Seneca, Pliny, Suetonius, and researching my book on New Testament Biblical Chronology (Important Dates in the Lives of Jesus and Mary). Latin is the language of Rome and of the Roman empire. Rome conquered Greece, and although scholars generally studied both Latin and Greek (since Greece had excellent scholarship), the common people spoke Latin. The coins and inscriptions of the Roman empire are in Latin.

 

[Bible_Reader]

It is interesting to note that in Chapter 16 of Romans includes a listing of specific names of Paul’s Christian contacts in Rome, and includes ten Latin names, eighteen Greek names, and two Hebrew names (as well as Christians from the households of the pagans Aristobulus and Narcissus.)

And, of course, we have this comment of Cicero in the first century BCE “Nam si quis minorem gloriae fructum putat ex graecis versibus percipi quam ex latinis, vehementer errat, propterea quod graeca leguntur in omnibus fere gentibus, latina suis finibus, exiguis sane, continentur” (“For if anyone thinks that the glory won by writing Greek verse is less than that given to one who writes in Latin, he is entirely wrong, because Greek letters are read in nearly every nation there is, whereas Latin letters are confined to their own, quite narrow, boundaries,” Pro Archia 23).

And a century later, the poet Juvenal complained “Non possum ferre, Quirites, graecam Urbem; quamvis quota portio faecis Achaei? Iam pridem Syrus in Tiberim defluxit Orontes, et linguam et mores … secum vexit” (“I can’t stand, Noble Citizens, a Rome of Greeks; and yet how great a portion of our dregs are Achaeans! The Syrian Orontes has long since flowed into the Tiber, bringing with it its patois and its manners!” Satire 3.60–65).

We do know that Clement (Rome, ca. 96) and Ignatius (Antioch, ca. 115) wrote in Greek. But by 180, we started to see Latin Christian documents: Appollonius, Victor, and then by the turn of the century, Latin was even better established (Tertullian, Minucius Felix).

On the other hand, at that time in Spain (where Paul intended to continue his ministry, Romans 15:24), there was widespread use of Latin.

 

[diggerdomer]

I disagree with the view (speaking in general) that recent scholarship has more weight than older scholarship. Modern Biblical scholars have committed some serious errors that scholars in past times generally did not commit.

More recent scholars may be as erroneous as scholars of any time. Or as correct.

However, more recent scholarship has the benefit of, e.g, greater knowledge of ancient languages (Pius XII noted and approved this specifically), archaeological discoveries, the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc. Even an ancient copy of the long-lost “Gospel of Judas” was recently discovered, which again adds to scholarship because before we only had people writing about it and not a copy of the text. We have more “evidence” and so, more knowledge, than the vast majority of historical scholars did.

 

[Ron_Conte]

More recent scholars may be as erroneous as scholars of any time. Or as correct.

However, more recent scholarship has the benefit of, e.g, greater knowledge of ancient languages (Pius XII noted and approved this specifically), archaeological discoveries, the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc. Even an ancient copy of the long-lost “Gospel of Judas” was recently discovered, which again adds to scholarship because before we only had people writing about it and not a copy of the text. We have more “evidence” and so, more knowledge, than the vast majority of historical scholars did.

I’m much more critical of modern scholarship than you are. There is a tendency in modern Scripture scholars to view the Bible as an object of scientific study, rather than the Word of God. It is also common for Scripture scholars to openly state their rejection of the role of faith in Biblical scholarship. And the text tends to be treated as if there were no spiritual level of meaning.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Back to the original question…

The Tweedale edition of the Clementine Vulgate is a nice light edit, London 2005.
vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/index.html

My own edit of the Clementine is here
sacredbible.org/vulgate2009/index.htm

A Latin interlinear, in the sense of a word for word translation with notations for gender, case, and tense, would be of some use, but since Latin is much closer to English, it is less of a necessity than a Hebrew or Greek interlinear. Latin uses basically the same alphabet, and many English words are derived from Latin.

I have a line by line Latin English Bible here
sacredbible.org/studybible/index.htm
But it is not interlinear in the sense of a very literal rendering of each word.

I think the most useful Latin edition is the Leander van Ess edition
sacredbible.org/vulgate1822/index.htm
which compares the 1590 Sixtine edition with the 92, 93, 98 Clementine editions.
This is invaluable for anyone working with the Clementine Vulgate.

 

[diggerdomer]

I’m much more critical of modern scholarship than you are. There is a tendency in modern Scripture scholars to view the Bible as an object of scientific study, rather than the Word of God. It is also common for Scripture scholars to openly state their rejection of the role of faith in Biblical scholarship. And the text tends to be treated as if there were no spiritual level of meaning.

Scholars using “scientific” methods can also use “spiritual” methods. The two are not mutually exclusive. Granted, some scholars likely use one or the other method as opposed to the other, but that’s no the Catholic approach.