The Council of Trent said that it contains no error of faith, not that it is a flawless translation or that further discoveries and scholarship into the original sources can contribute nothing. And after all, if the “Vulgate in 1546” were the ultimate expression of Holy Writ, then what was the need to revise it and issue the Sistine Vulgate (1590) and Clementine Vulgate (1592 with subsequent editions)?From what I’ve read thus far, it appears that the Nova Vulgata was promulgated in part to correct errors in Jerome’s original Vulgate; however, if Jerome’s original Vulgate was said to be without error by the Holy Father (I forget which one) how could the Nova Vulgata possibly be justified?
The sense of the word impinguo here is “to put fat onto, to make greasy.”I have been slowly reading the Nova Vulgata and I don’t see much difference between the two. But it is just a hobby with me - better than working crossword puzzles ( I was reading an old book from the 1800’s on line by an English Scholar who was writing a whole book on the development of the Latin " relative pronoun " and he made that very comment.). For instance - and this is an error made in both Vulgates: Psalm 23(22):8 has the phrase “…impinguasti in oleo caput meum…” Pardon me but that is just plain stupid, An error at least 1,500 years old is allowed to stand!! It is absolutely incredible. " Impinguare " means " to fatten " in Latin and has never meant anything else until it was translated as " to anoint " by the first translators from Latin to English.
The translators of course were perfectly aware that the Latin was incorrect, and they used the correct word " anoint " in English. But no one ever has, not to this day, dared to replace " impinguasti " with the correct word ", inunxisti " ( from " inungere, " meaning " to anoint " ). Such an omission is, such an error in scholarship is, beyond excusable. At this moment I am absolutely soured on the Vulgate. This is a human error of the Church which has dragged on for nearly two thousand years!!! Give us a Bible in Correct Latin !!!
I don’t agree with that, for several reasons. David was King and I doubt if he used common lamb fat on his hair. The kingly houshold surely used olive oil. Secondly, grease is not exactly the same as oil and it would soon stink, and in cool weather it would congeal, whereas olive oil would not. And " oleum " means oil and especially olive oil. Lewis and Short give simply " oil " and " olive oil, " not grease. Thirdly, why make such a stretch when there was a perfectly good Latin word " inunguere " ( to anoint ) available. Or there is the shorter " unguere. " Surely, Jerome knew these words existed. What I think happened is that some time after Jerome, some scribe, who did not know Latin veru well, used the wrong word and it passed on to posterity. And besides, as many times as the Vulgate has been " corrected, why the reluctance in using the only correct word? Why go through all the machinations of trying to stretch the meaning of a word like " impunguere " to make it mean something it never before meant in Latin? That shows a kind of arrogant bullheadedness often found in scholars trying to defend their turf. And I will not accept that as an excuse. So I repeat, give me a Bible with good clean Latin and the sacred turf of past " scholarship " be darned. And in case " scholars " fear offending the memory of St Jerome, he is a Saint and would be humble enough to admit that even he could make a mistake - not, however, that I believe that it was he who made the mistake.The sense of the word impinguo here is “to put fat onto, to make greasy.”
Did you actually read all that I wrote. Look again. I am not saying Jerome did not know what the Hebrew word meant. I am saying that either he or one of his scribes, or perhaps a later copiest used the wrong Latin word for " anoint, " and that through inattention or through " blind " loyalty to the master, or through some later scuabble between scholars, the error was repeated right into the Nova Vulgata. Now over the centuries many attempts have been made to correct the errors in the Vulgate, as you are well aware. And there are still errors to be corrected, as you are aware. But this is a particularlly glaring one, one that should have been corrected long ago. " Impinguo " never meant " anoint, " even by the wildest stretch of the imagination. But the " stretch " has been made by translators none the less. Why??? “Inunguo ( unguo) " was a perfectly good Latin word that meant " anoint " in English. And if you look at the derivation of " anoint " in a good dictionary, it will show that it is derived from the Latin " Inungo " or the shorter " unguo. " So how expain such a reluctance to replace " Impinguo” by the correct " inunguo? " Personally, I have no blind loyalty to any translation, I honor and respect Jerome and his great acomplishment.I didn’t mean that the word was literally supposed to mean “to make greasy” with lard or something, only that that is the general thrust of how it is to be understood, as opposed to “to fatten up.” Oil is a fat, you know. As to the rest, it’s obvious that the reason Jerome chose this word is that it is pretty much a direct translation of the underlying sense of the Hebrew root of the word that is being used here. Occasionally Jerome can be criticized for hewing more closely to the Hebrew than one might prefer (the “in” of “impinguasti in oleo” replicates a quirk of Hebrew syntax), but this instance is neither “plain stupid” nor a case of “arrogant bullheadedness.”
I don’t think you’re following me. The root of the Hebrew word here doesn’t really mean “to anoint” in the sense of some some sacred rite. It means “to fatten” or “to apply fat to” (plus several other senses). Lo and behold, the Latin word impinguo also means “to fatten” or “to apply fat to.” Thus the Latin and the Hebrew have the same literal meaning, and the sense of “anointing” in both cases comes about figuratively. I really don’t see the problem.Did you actually read all that I wrote. Look again. I am not saying Jerome did not know what the Hebrew word meant. I am saying that either he or one of his scribes, or perhaps a later copiest used the wrong Latin word for " anoint, " and that through inattention or through " blind " loyalty to the master, or through some later scuabble between scholars, the error was repeated right into the Nova Vulgata. Now over the centuries many attempts have been made to correct the errors in the Vulgate, as you are well aware. And there are still errors to be corrected, as you are aware. But this is a particularlly glaring one, one that should have been corrected long ago. " Impinguo " never meant " anoint, " even by the wildest stretch of the imagination. But the " stretch " has been made by translators none the less. Why??? “Inunguo ( unguo) " was a perfectly good Latin word that meant " anoint " in English. And if you look at the derivation of " anoint " in a good dictionary, it will show that it is derived from the Latin " Inungo " or the shorter " unguo. " So how expain such a reluctance to replace " Impinguo” by the correct " inunguo? " Personally, I have no blind loyalty to any translation, I honor and respect Jerome and his great acomplishment.
To error is human, to refuse to amend the error is something else again.
I guess the problem is that we have the Vulgate at all. Think of all the energy that has gone into it over the centuries. Yet, it is still in a form that is difficult for anyone except an expert to read. The ordinary lay person, like myself, who may know a little Latin, or who is really just learning Latin, really cannot read it with genuine understanding because he keeps running into the problems similar to the ones I have mentioned. What is wanted is either a translation that has replaced those phrases, vocabulary, grammar, etc with something that can be read with understanding. To say for example that the ancients used " grease" or " to daub with grease " doesn’t help much because the lay reader will just give up the effort. At the very least footnotes could have been provided which explained why these " hebrewisms " were retained. Now the Nova Vulgata has many changes meant to " clean up " the Clemtine Vulgate. But they didn’t go far enough. I see nothing wrong with making these changes. By the way, you will never convince me that the Royal house of David put animal grease on their heads, or that animal grease was " poured " on the head of Aaron!!Many Indo-European languages have “to grease”, “to oil”, “to slick back”, or even “to wax” when they mean “to anoint one’s hair with perfume”, or “to fix one’s hair with hair preparations”, or all sorts of other meanings.
People in ancient Rome used olive oil and scented oils and ointments on their hair in many of the same festive and sacred ways that the Israelites did. But “anoint” wasn’t always the word they used for it, and the same thing was true with Jerome.
So yeah, sorry that the early Christians liked “greased” instead of “anointed” at some spots, but they’re the ones who spoke the language like natives.
And if the Scriptures had been written in English or said “anoint,” this would be remotely relevant.My contention in this discussion is that " impinguere " is the incorrect Latin word to use for the English verb " to anoint. "
Now I want to prove my point. " ungo, ungere, unxi, unctum " or one of their inflected forms or some noun or adjective form of this verb is used many times in the Vulgate - both the Old and the New Testiment. However I know of only one use of " impinguere " and its use there is incorrect.
Far from reinforcing your point, this drives a dagger into it. The word used in Ps. 23, dissantā, comes from a root meaning “make fat, put fat on.” By contrast, the word used in all of your other examples, Is. 61:3, Ps. 45:7, Ex. 30:25 & 31, and Ps. 89:21, is mashach, which means “to smear, rub with oil, anoint.” Different words, different nuances, different Latin translations (… same English translation? oh well). Looks like the translators of the Latin got it right, and you have gotten it wrong.In Is 61:1,3 we find “…eo quod unxerit Dominus Me…,” ( because My Lord anointed me).
In Ps 45(44) we find "…unxit te Deus, Deus tuus, oleo laetitiae…( God, your God has anointed you with the oil of gladness).
If serving as the basis of second-level translations were a major function of the Vulgate, then perhaps so. But then again, it ain’t.The Latin should have been changed so it could be translated into the vernacular.
On the contrary, I am ignorant about the Hebrew. However I do trust the Douay-Rhiems ( Challoner edition ) and in all the instances I have cited it uses " anoint " either in its noun, verb, or adjectival form to translate " ungo " or one of its forms, and only in the one case in Psalm 23:5 where we find " you have anointed " as a translation for " impinguisti. " So, in fifty or so cases we have " anoint " for " ungo " or " unguo " and in one case we have " anoint " as a translation for " impinguo." Are you saying then that " the exception " makes the rule? " I prefer to think that the common usage sets the rule.And if the Scriptures had been written in English or said “anoint,” this would be remotely relevant.
Far from reinforcing your point, this drives a dagger into it. The word used in Ps. 23, dissantā, comes from a root meaning “make fat, put fat on.” By contrast, the word used in all of your other examples, Is. 61:3, Ps. 45:7, Ex. 30:25 & 31, and Ps. 89:21, is mashach, which means “to smear, rub with oil, anoint.” Different words, different nuances, different Latin translations (… same English translation? oh well). Looks like the translators of the Latin got it right, and you have gotten it wrong.
If serving as the basis of second-level translations were a major function of the Vulgate, then perhaps so. But then again, it ain’t.