? on Latin Vulgate

[vladimir998]

Ron has a good point here. I find it disconcerting that the latest vulgate is little more than a Latin translation of MODERN Greek and Hebrew Bibles. In other words, those things which were once commonly part of the Vulgate, but not commonly found in Hebrew or Greek critical editions today, have been excised.

The last few verses of Judith 13 are a good example. If you want to see what I am talking about then look at Judith 13 in the NAB and the Douay-Rheims or Confraternity. The NAB will have several verses missing at the end. Why would that be dropped from the Vulgate when it always used to be there? At least the RSVCE includes it in a footnote.

It seems to me that the latest vulgate should not just reflect the best scholarship but also the traditions of the vulgate (even if only in a footnotes!).

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Jerome’s translation of the Vulgate is not extant. We do not have any copies of his translation. What we have are many manuscripts in Latin probably based in large part on his work, and which have gone through many generations of editing.

The Latin version of the Bible most commonly found online is a 1970’s edit done by a Protestant Bible society in Germany. It is not a Catholic Latin version of the Bible.

Here are some online Latin Bible versions that are Catholic:
sacredbible.org/
vatican.va/archive/bible/
vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/

Ron

Hi Ron,
I cannot speak for ALL of the vulgate, but my work on the Codex Fuldensis, as witnessed in the Codex Sangallensis, shows that in the cases of Matthew’s, and John’s Gospels, 85% of the Latin text can be extracted, which is in agreement, word for word, if not letter for letter, with the Clementine.
You can find PDF files of these extracted Gospels showing direct witness, indirect witness, and deviations from Clementine, on my web site.

 

[Ron_Conte]

You are over-emphasizing one codex.

The Sixtus V and Clement VIII edition takes into account thousands of manuscripts mainly in the Latin Scriptural tradition.

Ron

 

[Manfred]

Notice that they sought to keep the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin scriptural traditions separate. But the erroneous tendency today is to try to merge all manuscripts into one allegedly definitive (but usually very flawed) translation.

I would love to see official Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Aramaic versions of the Bible: four separate editions, representing different scriptural traditions, which do not try to be exactly the same. These could be useful reference editions from which other editions and other translations could be produced.

But the current state of Biblical scholarship makes this all but impossible. For the present time.

Ron

Ron,

I take it it’s the ancient traditions whose texts you don’t want mixed, as well as a “revision” of an ancient text made by selecting from and merging the other different ancient traditions; cf. Nova Vulgata.

So, then, you have no problem with the making of vernacular translations from the separate traditions, even if the translation is eclectic?

Manfred