"New Vulgate" translation: is this available?

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnbres2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

johnbres2

Guest
I was just reading the Liturgy of the Hours on-line at universalis.com, and noted that the Psalms are set out in a different (and quite beautiful) translation. The notes to the site say:

“The New Vulgate translation of the Bible, formally adopted in 1979, replaces the previous translation of the biblical texts in the long and short readings of the Liturgy. Certain texts in the old translation are omitted from the new one, or have a different meaning in the new translation. These have been replaced as necessary. The psalm texts have similarly been revised according to the New Vulgate. The responsories in the Office of Readings have been revised according to the New Vulgate, except where strong reasons exist for leaving them unchanged (long tradition, established music, liturgical significance).”

Does anyone know if this translation is available?
 
Are you asking if the *Nova Vulgata *is available? Yes it is: Here and here for hardcopy editions, here for online.

Or are you asking if there is an English translation of the *Nova Vulgata *(a la the Douay Rheims)? None of which I am aware.

tee
 
that is a shame there is not an English translation, as I like what I see of the New Vulgate in the Liturgy of the Hours.
 
[post=3749643]It seems unlikely that such a translation would be made and approved for liturgical use.[/post] Which would not preclude the production of one for personal study. :twocents:

tee
 
The Nova Vulgata NT has serious problems:
  1. The erosion of the Canon of Scripture. The Nova Vulgata NT drops hundreds of words from the NT that are found in the Latin Scriptural tradition, and also found in the Greek Majority Text and Textus Receptus.
  2. The abandonment of the Latin Scriptural tradition. The Latin basis for the NV NT is the Stuttgart text of the German Bible Society, thoroughly edited to conform to the United Bible Societies Greek text. The Clementine Vulgate is completely ignored.
  3. The abandonment of Catholic scholarship, and the adoption of Protestant scholarship in its place. The Stuttgart Latin and the UBS Greek are works produced by teams of mainly Protestant scholars – material heretics who give no consideration to Catholic teaching when translating and editing Scripture.
  4. The abandonment of the Greek Majority Text, the Textus Receptus, and all other scholarship on the Greek text of the NT, other than the UBS critical text. The UBS critical text tends to omit many words and phrases, and even whole verses, on the basis of largely unstated scholarly considerations and conclusions. The MT and TR texts witness to many Greek manuscripts that are ignored by the UBS text. The Nova Vulgata NT does not generally represent the latest Biblical scholarship, but rather ignores all scholarship other than that of the Stuttgart and UBS Protestant texts.
  5. Some points in the NT text were altered by the NV editors, not based on any scholarship, but rather on political correctness. For example, the NV rephrases ‘sons of the groom’ (filii sponsi) to ‘guests of the wedding’ (convivae nuptiarum), contrary to the Greek and Latin texts (Mt 9:15). In another example, silence is changed to tranquil in 1 Tim 2:11-12.
  6. There are hundreds of typographical errors in the online version of the Nova Vulgata in both Testaments.
  7. Some editorial decisions seem to show either a lack of understanding of Latin, or a lack of concern for whether the text will read well, or even be grammatically correct, in Latin. In this example, the three lines are from the Clementine, Stuttgart, and NV texts:
[Matthew]
{14:14} Et exiens vidit turbam multam, et misertus est eis, et curavit languidos eorum.
{14:14} et exiens vidit turbam multam et misertus est **eius **et curavit languidos eorum
{14:14} Et exiens vidit turbam multam et misertus est **eorum **et curavit languidos eorum.

The use of ‘eius’ in the Stuttgart is most probably a typographical error. But the editors of the NV seem not to have realized that it is a typographical error, and so they ‘corrected’ the singular genitive ‘eius’ to the plural ‘eorum,’ (the pronoun should be plural, but should not be genitive) despite using ‘eis’ not ‘eorum’ in v. 9:36. The use of ‘eorum’ instead of ‘eis’ is a very noticeable error in the Latin.
 
Ron_Conte said:
  1. Some editorial decisions seem to show either a lack of understanding of Latin, or a lack of concern for whether the text will read well, or even be grammatically correct, in Latin. In this example, the three lines are from the Clementine, Stuttgart, and NV texts:
[Matthew]
{14:14} Et exiens vidit turbam multam, et misertus est eis, et curavit languidos eorum.
{14:14} et exiens vidit turbam multam et misertus est **eius **et curavit languidos eorum
{14:14} Et exiens vidit turbam multam et misertus est **eorum **et curavit languidos eorum.

The use of ‘eius’ in the Stuttgart is most probably a typographical error. But the editors of the NV seem not to have realized that it is a typographical error, and so they ‘corrected’ the singular genitive ‘eius’ to the plural ‘eorum,’ (the pronoun should be plural, but should not be genitive) despite using ‘eis’ not ‘eorum’ in v. 9:36. The use of ‘eorum’ instead of ‘eis’ is a very noticeable error in the Latin.
Click to expand...
The verb misereor takes the genitive case in Classical Latin. Later Latin seemingly allows it to take the dative as well (e.g. miserere nobis), as the Clementine does.

And Stuttgart uses a singular pronoun because turba is singular. The Nova Vulgata translates it according to sense (i.e. a crowd is made up of many people) and not the technical grammatical number. They both make sense.
 
Nooj said:
The verb misereor takes the genitive case in Classical Latin. Later Latin seemingly allows it to take the dative as well (e.g. miserere nobis), as the Clementine does.
Click to expand...
If that were true, then the NV would also use eorum (genitive plural), and the Stuttgart would also use eius (genitive singular), in other places with the same verb, but they do not:

Matthew 9:36 - NV
Videns autem turbas, misertus est eis, quia erant vexati et iacentes sicut oves non habentes pastorem.

Matthew 9:36 - Stuttgart
videns autem turbas misertus est eis quia erant vexati et iacentes sicut oves non habentes pastorem

They use eis, just as all the editions of the Sistine and Clementine Vulgate do. Therefore, the use of ‘eius’ by the Stuttgart is a typo, and the change from ‘eius’ to ‘eorum’ by the NV is based on that typo, not on other considerations.
Nooj said:
And Stuttgart uses a singular pronoun because turba is singular. The Nova Vulgata translates it according to sense (i.e. a crowd is made up of many people) and not the technical grammatical number. They both make sense.
Click to expand...
If that were true, then the NV would continue to treat singular forms of ‘turba’ as plural, it does not:

Matthew 13:2 - NV
et congregatae sunt ad eum turbae multae, ita ut in naviculam ascendens sederet, et omnis turba stabat in litore.

turba is singular, and it is treated as singular, since the verb stabat is singular, not plural.
 
Ron_Conte said:
If that were true, then the NV would also use eorum (genitive plural), and the Stuttgart would also use eius (genitive singular), in other places with the same verb, but they do not:

They use eis, just as all the editions of the Sistine and Clementine Vulgate do. Therefore, the use of ‘eius’ by the Stuttgart is a typo, and the change from ‘eius’ to ‘eorum’ by the NV is based on that typo, not on other considerations.
Click to expand...
You’re not looking hard enough.

Nova Vulgata

Matthew 15:32
32 Iesus autem convocatis discipulis suis dixit: “ Misereor turbae, quia triduo iam perseverant mecum et non habent, quod manducent; et dimittere eos ieiunos nolo, ne forte deficiant in via ”.

(Granted, this could be a dative, but I think the weight of evidence from below suggests it is genitive.)

Matthew 17:15
15 et dicens: “ Domine, miserere filii mei, quia lunaticus est et male patitur; nam saepe cadit in ignem et crebro in aquam.

Matthew 18:27
27 Misertus autem dominus servi illius dimisit eum et debitum dimisit ei.

Stuttgart

Matthew 18:27
27 misertus autem dominus servi illius dimisit eum

Matthew 17:14
14 et cum venisset ad turbam accessit ad eum homo genibus provolutus ante eum dicens Domine miserere filii mei quia lunaticus est et male patitur nam saepe cadit in ignem et crebro in aquam
Ron_Conte said:
They use eis, just as all the editions of the Sistine and Clementine Vulgate do. Therefore, the use of ‘eius’ by the Stuttgart is a typo, and the change from ‘eius’ to ‘eorum’ by the NV is based on that typo, not on other considerations.
Click to expand...
The Clementine doesn’t stick with the dative. See

Matthew 20:34
34 Misertus autem eorum Jesus, tetigit oculos eorum. Et confestim viderunt, et secuti sunt eum.

Matthew 18:33
33 nonne ergo oportuit et te misereri conservi tui, sicut et ego tui misertus sum ?

Matthew 18:27
27 Misertus autem dominus servi illius, dimisit eum, et debitum dimisit ei.

You could even argue that the eis is a typo, seeing as how in most of the other places the translators stuck with the genitive case. And since the translation was done by committee, it’s possible that they each translated according to their knowledge in Latin which could differ in what cases they preferred. And the third option is that it really doesn’t matter what case. Both genitive and dative work.
Ron_Conte said:
If that were true, then the NV would continue to treat singular forms of ‘turba’ as plural, it does not:
Click to expand...
No, it wouldn’t. Why would they? Latin can easily switch back and forth from constructions according to sense.

And I’m puzzled by your criticism. Check this out:

{14:14} Et exiens vidit turbam multam, et misertus est eis, et curavit languidos eorum.

Why aren’t you criticising the Clementine for using a dative plural when it should use ei? Why aren’t you criticising the Clementine for using eorum when it should be eius?
 
In the Forward of the New Vulgate, Blessed John Paul states that this translation is free from doctrinal error, it may not be free from other errors to which all translations of the Sacred Texts are subject. I don’t know if Blessed John Paul preferred this translation to that of those which went before it. But it is apparantly true that there is no " literal " English translation. I too have found places in the New Vulgate which differed substantially in meaning from the earlier Vulgate editions. As long as the text you are using is free from doctrinal error I guess it is O.K. to use whichever text you prefer. I don’t know for sure how closely the New Roman Missel follows the New Vulgate in Latin and I don’t know how accurate/literal/faithful the English translation of the New Roman Missel is but however accurate or inaccurate or faithful or literal it may be or may not be all may rely upon its doctrinal integrity ( and the few examples the Faithful have been given in their hand-outs at Mass would seem to indicate that it is very literal) so it can be used to direct your own translation of the New Vulgate. The guide here is that the " …the Church believes as it prayes…" So if you are guiding your prayer by the current English translation of the New Roman Missel, you are praying with the Church. One always has an attachment to more poetical translations found in some psalter or some other English translation. My all time favorite was a Confraternity of Christian Doctrine translation of the Bible which I have long since lost. Remember, it isn’t your poetry which will get you into Heaven, it is your sincerity.
 
I thought that universalis used the ‘Grail’ translation of the Psalms?
 
I’ve had a couple of other thoughts on this subject. Does anyone know whether or not the New Roman Missel uses the New Vulgate? If it does, then it should follow that the current English translation of the New Roman Missel would be the best source for an English translation of the New Vulgate.

Those of you who have done even a tiny bit of personal research into the translation of Scripture are aware of the humungus difficulty involved in this field. Firstly, the Scriptures were not written down until long after ( usually ) they were preached-an exception to this would be the various Letters in the New Testament and perhaps the Acts of the Apostles. So you are faced with the immeciate problem that the original speaker spoke in his own language which may have been Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic for the most part. Then, as time went on, the written Scriptures were taken to a peoples who didn’t speak that language. So the problem of translation arose. Added to this, changes in a peoples’ language over time. Added to this was the fact that the original languages of the written Scriptures themselves changed. These problems grew greater as time went on. Thus the rise in the Church of the efforts to get an " official " translation. But then that " official " translation was now in Latin for the West and Greek for the East. These in turn had to be translated into dozens of " local " languages. Some of these lacked a wide enough language or mode of expression to accurately translate the Scriptures in a smooth or poetic manner. This problem continues to this day. Then is the problem, once you have an " official " translation of Scriptures of getting that translation into all the prayer books used by the faithful, especially the Divine Office, and the other prayer books. Some how the Holy Spirit keeps us all speaking one voice. The final outcome is quite amazing and in my mind is proof enough that God does exist and that He guides the Church by His Spirit.
 
A propo to what I have been saying it is a fact that the Latin in the New Roman Missel follows the New Vulgate only where it seems more appropriate. If that is true, we can expect the same rule applies in the translation into the various vernacular languages. Read the " FIFTH INSTRUCTION FOR THE RIGHT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONSTITUTION ON THE SACRED LITURGY OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL”
This is found on the Vatican web site.

discreet.[20]
  1. Furthermore, it is not permissible that the translations be produced from other translations already made into other languages; rather, the new translations must be made directly from the original texts, namely the Latin, as regards the texts of ecclesiastical composition, or the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, as the case may be, as regards the texts of Sacred Scripture. [24] Furthermore, in the preparation of these translations for liturgical use, the Nova Vulgata Editio, promulgated by the Apostolic See, is normally to be consulted as an auxiliary tool, in a manner described elsewhere in this Instruction, in order to maintain the tradition of interpretation that is proper to the Latin Liturgy.
  2. Even if expressions should be avoided which hinder comprehension because of their excessively unusual or awkward nature, the liturgical texts should be considered as the voice of the Church at prayer, rather than of only particular congregations or individuals; thus, they should be free of an overly servile adherence to prevailing modes of expression. If indeed, in the liturgical texts, words or expressions are sometimes employed which differ somewhat from usual and everyday speech, it is often enough by virtue of this very fact that the texts become truly memorable and capable of expressing heavenly realities. Indeed, it will be seen that the observance of the principles set forth in this Instruction will contribute to the gradual development, in each vernacular, of a sacred style that will come to be recognized as proper to liturgical language. Thus it may happen that a certain manner of speech which has come to be considered somewhat obsolete in daily usage may continue to be maintained in the liturgical context. In translating biblical passages where seemingly inelegant words or expressions are used, a hasty tendency to sanitize this characteristic is likewise to be avoided. These principles, in fact, should free the Liturgy from the necessity of frequent revisions when modes of expression may have passed out of popular usage.
  3. The Sacred Liturgy engages not only man’s intellect, but the whole person, who is the “subject” of full and conscious participation in the liturgical celebration. Translators should therefore allow the signs and images of the texts, as well as the ritual actions, to speak for themselves; they should not attempt to render too explicit that which is implicit in the original texts. For the same reason, the addition of explanatory texts not contained in the editio typica is to be prudently avoided. Consideration should also be given to including in the vernacular editions at least some texts in the Latin language, especially those from the priceless treasury of Gregorian chant, which the Church recognizes as proper to the Roman Liturgy, and which, all other things being equal, is to be given pride of place in liturgical celebrations.[28] Such chant, indeed, has a great power to lift the human spirit to heavenly realities.
  4. It is the task of the homily and of catechesis to set forth the meaning of the liturgical texts,[29] illuminating with precision the Church’s understanding regarding the members of particular Churches or ecclesial communities separated from full communion with the Catholic Church and those of Jewish communities, as well as adherents of other religions – and likewise, her understanding of the dignity and equality of all men.[30] Similarly, it is the task of catechists or of the homilist to transmit that right interpretation of the texts that excludes any prejudice or unjust discrimination on the basis of persons, gender, social condition, race or other criteria, which has no foundation at all in the texts of the Sacred Liturgy. Although considerations such as these may sometimes help one in choosing among various translations of a certain expression, they are not to be considered reasons for altering either a biblical text or a liturgical text that has been duly promulgated.
  5. If the biblical translation from which the Lectionary is composed exhibits readings that differ from those set forth in the Latin liturgical text, it should be borne in mind that the Nova Vulgata Editio is the point of reference as regards the delineation of the canonical text.[32] Thus, in the translation of the deuterocanonical books and wherever else there may exist varying manuscript traditions, the liturgical translation must be prepared in accordance with the same manuscript tradition that the Nova Vulgata has followed. If a previously prepared translation reflects a choice that departs from that which is found in the Nova Vulgata Editio as regards the underlying textual tradition, the order of verses, or similar factors, the discrepancy needs to be remedied in the preparation of any Lectionary so that conformity with the Latin liturgical text may be maintained. In preparing new translations, it would be helpful, though not obligatory, that the numbering of the verses also follow that of the same text as closely as possible.
So the answer is : there is no English translation of the New Vulgate and probably never be, and certainly, there will never be one which will be either authoritative or which will please everyone.
 
Any accurate English translation of either the Clemmentine Vulgate or the Nova Vulgata would show how INACCURATE all the current Catholic and Protestant translations are.

Combine the agendas of the liberal modernists with those of the Latin onlyists and the protestant heretics and you have the reason why you don’t have an accurate English translation of the Vulgate.

If people read an accurate translation of the vulgate–they couldn’t stomach the NAB.
 
I’m glad to see this discussion going again, I think it is important since for the last few years the Church has been encouraging the faithful to read and study the Bible. In view of all the problems discussed in all the above commentaries and those found all over the internet I have always wondered, why? If a Catholic is going to study the Bible, to my mind it makes since to choose either the Clementine Vulgate or the New Vulgate and the most literal English translation, which would seem to be the Douay-Rheims and I would suggest the Haydock edition. Between the two Latin texts there will be many differences but I have found non which endanger the faith or engender error. In the back of one’s mind the reader always has to keep in mind that the teaching authority of the Church is the last arbeiter and authority on the meaning of Scripture. Scripture is the Inspired Word of God but the individual layman ( me and you) or the individual Scripture Scholar, or a particular Biblical Commission are not Inspired. The teaching authority of the Church is Inspired and always has the last word. And in those cases where that is not available one must have the humility to place an " ? " on that item and forget it until authority speaks. One can always be guided by the truth that " …the Church believes as it prays…" So by searching the current Roman Missel or any of the past which had approved usage, one cannot go wrong. My feeling is that the futher we stray from the approved texts, either in Latin or in the approved vernacular of the Missel the more prone we are to error. It is always nice to have a nice poetic translation but is that always what the truth needs?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top