Protestant criticism of the Latin Vulgate?

[bksumm]

Over Thanksgiving, I (Catholic convert) was shown an old bible that was my great-grandfathers by my mom (Baptist). She explained that my great-grandfather was from Ireland and was…sigh…Catholic. As we examined it, we noticed it was an English translation from the Latin Vulgate, circa 1910. My mom commented “you know all the problems with the Vulgate.” I knew Jerome translated the Vulgate for Pope Damasus in the late 4th Century and that the Septuagint was used. But what’s the problem with the Vulgate? I could only find some worthless Chick criticism on the internet. Any legitimate scholarly concerns?

Peace,

Bruce

 

[crazzeto]

Nope, no legitimate concerns regarding the Vulgate. It has been the Gold Standard bible for the Church from the time of Jerome until the Novo Vulgate.

(other of course than being… you know… catholic )

Edit
BTW which translation? Douay? That’s a great bible.

 

[Joe_5859]

Over Thanksgiving, I (Catholic convert) was shown an old bible that was my great-grandfathers by my mom (Baptist). She explained that my great-grandfather was from Ireland and was…sigh…Catholic. As we examined it, we noticed it was an English translation from the Latin Vulgate, circa 1910. My mom commented “you know all the problems with the Vulgate.” I knew Jerome translated the Vulgate for Pope Damasus in the late 4th Century and that the Septuagint was used. But what’s the problem with the Vulgate? I could only find some worthless Chick criticism on the internet. Any legitimate scholarly concerns?

Peace,

Bruce

There’s a reason you haven’t found anything besides Chick criticism.

The reason some Protestants may take issue with it is because the OT translation is based off of the Septuagint (the Greek translation which includes those deutrocanonical books left out of Protestant Bibles). Some Protestants believe the Septuagint is inferior to the Masoretic Text (in Hebrew) of the Old Testament (which was the source text for the KJV).

On the surface, one can understand their view as it seems that the text written in Hebrew (the original language) would be superior to the text written in Greek (a translation from the Hebrew). The only thing is the Septuagint is actually older than the Masoretic Text (even the Vulgate is older than the Masoretic Text). The Masoretic Text dates back to between the 7th and 10th century AD, while the Septuagint dates back to the 2nd or 3rd century BC.

 

[ljubim]

Right, whoever translated the Vulgate referred to the Septuagint AND the Hebrew… so definitely the most complete older translation…

Crazzeto: I know! Douay is such a great translation! I’m torn between that, and NAB. Both have a few awkwardly translated lines… so that’s when I look to the other to figure out what on earth was being said

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

Over Thanksgiving, I (Catholic convert) was shown an old bible that was my great-grandfathers by my mom (Baptist). She explained that my great-grandfather was from Ireland and was…sigh…Catholic. As we examined it, we noticed it was an English translation from the Latin Vulgate, circa 1910. My mom commented “you know all the problems with the Vulgate.” I knew Jerome translated the Vulgate for Pope Damasus in the late 4th Century and that the Septuagint was used. But what’s the problem with the Vulgate? I could only find some worthless Chick criticism on the internet. Any legitimate scholarly concerns?

Peace,

Bruce

Interesting comment from your mom, since protestant Bibles have much bigger problems, such as the fact that they are missing 6 books. Its too bad that protestantism is only 500 years old. If they were around during Jerome’s time maybe they might have done a better job. But they weren’t, and they didn’t.

 

[bksumm]

Thanks to all for the response. Any Protestants want to offer any thoughts?

IrishCatholic: I was thinking the same thing regarding the historical fact that the Protestant/Evangelical Church didn’t exist during the 4th Century to offer a better translation. Problem is that it’s hard to convince some Baptists that their tradition comes from the Reformation.

crazzeto: I am not sure if it is a Douey but I am asking my folks for the bible as a keepsake. Another interesting note…my great-grandfather wrote what looks like an apologetic postscript in the back of the bible regarding Church authority. He spent his last days in Oklahoma around many Protestants.

 

[Cachonga]

Just to add my 2 cents worth - I believe most of us know that things can get “lost” in translations (for example, the Greek words “agape”, “phileo” and “eros” can all be translated as “love” in English). The Septuagint was translated from Hebrew to Greek, the Greek texts were translated into Latin, then that was translated into English. That would make the NT a translation of a translation (Greek to Latin to English), and the OT a translation of a translation of a translation (Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English). I would suggest that the only way to know if something got “lost” would be to go back to the original Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT).

In regard to the deuterocanonicals, I will agree with Jerome’s opinion (they are useful for instruction and edification, but not to be used in deciding doctrine). BTW - this opinion was also held by Cardinal Cajetan (who interviewed Martin Luther) and Cardinal Ximenes (another contemporary of Luther). Since this is not a discussion on these books, I will end here.

Pax!

 

[Joe_5859]

I would suggest that the only way to know if something got “lost” would be to go back to the original Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT).

And that would be all well and good if we had the original Hebrew text with us. We do not. The Septuagint is the oldest translation of the OT we have.

Of course, any modern translation worth its salt should look at several sources. When coming across difficult passages, there’s no reason we can’t consult the Septuagint, the Vulgate and even the MT (along with looking at how the verse looks in other works, such as the writings of the early Church Fathers).

 

[Jolly_Joe]

Thanks to all for the response. Any Protestants want to offer any thoughts?

IrishCatholic: I was thinking the same thing regarding the historical fact that the Protestant/Evangelical Church didn’t exist during the 4th Century to offer a better translation. Problem is that it’s hard to convince some Baptists that their tradition comes from the Reformation.

crazzeto: I am not sure if it is a Douey but I am asking my folks for the bible as a keepsake. Another interesting note…my great-grandfather wrote what looks like an apologetic postscript in the back of the bible regarding Church authority. He spent his last days in Oklahoma around many Protestants.

I think when your mother says something and you don’t know what she means that you should learn to talk to her and find out what she means instead of running to a bunch of other people and assuming what she meant and concluding she is wrong.

Doing so is really a form of false witness against your mother and a violation of the commandment to honor her.

So why don’t you call her up ask her what she thinks the problems with the Vulgate are and report back what she meant?

Approach it with the attitude that even though she is your mother, that doesn’t automatically make her wrong.

 

[bksumm]

Hey Joe,

Ahhhh well I think you are a little quick to judge. Perhaps my post wasn’t clear.

The previously mentioned encounter is part of an ongoing dialogue between my mother and I. Unfortunatelly she has been fed a lot of anti-Catholic bunk including the stuff from Chick about the Vulgate…see here:chick.com/ask/articles/nkjvtext.asp.

I am fully aware of what she means when she makes reference to the “Vulgate.” What I am trying to ascertain from you guys is if there is something negative I should know about the Vulgate. Sorry if you think it is inappropriate to acquire knowledge before I respectfully disagree with my mother whom I love with all my heart.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Being a former Southern Baptist I know what my thoughts would be. And that would be that the Vulgate is a translation from the Greek and Hebrew, which would make it inferior the those versions.

Since the Church has always had such high regard for the Vulgate then I know that it is not inferior to anything, but from a textual critic standpoint there are more valuable readings to consult, though the Vulgate is the best Latin translation of them. It’s kind of hard to explain it without being taken out of context and offending some people.

 

[Linda_Marie]

Just to add my 2 cents worth - I believe most of us know that things can get “lost” in translations (for example, the Greek words “agape”, “phileo” and “eros” can all be translated as “love” in English). The Septuagint was translated from Hebrew to Greek, the Greek texts were translated into Latin, then that was translated into English. That would make the NT a translation of a translation (Greek to Latin to English), and the OT a translation of a translation of a translation (Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English). I would suggest that the only way to know if something got “lost” would be to go back to the original Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT).

In regard to the deuterocanonicals, I will agree with Jerome’s opinion (they are useful for instruction and edification, but not to be used in deciding doctrine). BTW - this opinion was also held by Cardinal Cajetan (who interviewed Martin Luther) and Cardinal Ximenes (another contemporary of Luther). Since this is not a discussion on these books, I will end here.

Pax!

We have good reason to accept the Septuagint as a God-inspired translation. The name itself translated means the Seventy. This refers to the 70 Jewish scholars who each translated the Hebrew texts into Greek, individually without consulting one another. All 70 translations were the exactly the same. The chances of this being a random occurrence are minuscule. God inspired the Septuagint translation.
newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm

The Massoretic text was translated back from the Greek to Hebrew since they no longer had the original scrolls in Hebrew, but without the benefit of the 70 independent translators all coming up with the same exact translation.

Jerome commented in a later work that his preface to the Deutercanons was merely repeating the arguments that some may make against it, not the** he **was making that argument. He was rather upset that people were taking his words the wrong way. I read this on a thread in the Sacred Scripture forum which I don’t recall at the moment, sorry I can’t give a reference. I’ll keep looking but I have to go to work now.

Here’s some more information:

“5 Myths about 7 Books”
Here are the answers to five common arguments Protestants give for rejecting the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament
By Mark Shea

envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html

 

[Dirk_Skene]

I never give comments like that a 2nd thought. The KJV is so arcaine it’s not worth using in 2009 and they want to critisize a good translation?

 

[patrick457]

We have good reason to accept the Septuagint as a God-inspired translation. The name itself translated means the Seventy. This refers to the 70 Jewish scholars who each translated the Hebrew texts into Greek, individually without consulting one another. All 70 translations were the exactly the same. The chances of this being a random occurrence are minuscule. God inspired the Septuagint translation.
newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm

Well, so the story goes, which was so well-known that it was even repeated as fact across the centuries. However, it is more likely (from a historical POV) that what we know now as the Septuagint is actually a collection of independent translations into Greek of various books which were later considered as Scripture, made between the 3rd to 1st centuries BC.

Note that the Septuagint is not the only Greek translation floating around: around the 1st-2nd centuries AD, some Jews noted textual differences between their received Hebrew text and the Septuagint - one of the factors that led to the decrease of the use of the translation in later periods. As a result, some Jews decided to make new translations of Scriptural books into Greek, with the contemporary Hebrew text as a base. The three well known translations from this period are by the proselyte Aquila of Sinope, Symmachus the Ebionite, and Theodotion.

In fact, the Septuagint that most of us are familiar today may not be the original version. Around AD 235, the church father Origen completed the Hexapla (“sixfold”), a comprehensive comparison of the various Greek translations and the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, all arranged in six column. One of the columns was a critical apparatus combining readings from all the various Greek versions - mainly the Septuagint with interpolations from Theodotion’s translation. Perhaps the voluminous Hexapla was never copied in its entirety, but this fifth column was copied frequently, eventually without the editing marks, and the older uncombined text was eventually neglected. Thus this combined text became the first major Christian recension of the Septuagint, often called the Hexaplar recension. Meanwhile, two other major Christian recensions/revisions of the text were identified by St. Jerome, who attributed these to St. Lucian of Antioch (died 312) and Hesychius of Jerusalem (ca. 5th century AD).

The Massoretic text was translated back from the Greek to Hebrew since they no longer had the original scrolls in Hebrew, but without the benefit of the 70 independent translators all coming up with the same exact translation.

It’s the first time I’ve heard of that idea. Source please?

In many readings, the oldest Biblical fragments among the Dead Sea Scrolls do support the Septuagint over the Masoretic (proving that many of the variants in Greek were also present in early Semitic manuscripts). However, there were also many texts found which support the Masoretic, suggesting that an ancestor of the Masoretic text we have today was indeed extant as early as the 2nd century BC, contemporaneous with the Septuagint. Thus I think, rather, that the original Septuagint most likely preserved a record of a now-lost textual variant that differed from the proto-Masoretic text - rather than one being a direct translation of the other. They were probably descendants of two different textual traditions.

 

[patrick457]

There’s a reason you haven’t found anything besides Chick criticism.

The reason some Protestants may take issue with it is because the OT translation is based off of the Septuagint (the Greek translation which includes those deutrocanonical books left out of Protestant Bibles). Some Protestants believe the Septuagint is inferior to the Masoretic Text (in Hebrew) of the Old Testament (which was the source text for the KJV).

Yep, and it’s all based on outdated scholarship and popular opinion - mostly dating from the Renaissance, but one which also had a precedent in the early centuries AD, when some Jewish circles noted the difference between their contemporary Hebrew text and the Septuagint. Isn’t it unfortunate that people don’t check updates?

 

[bksumm]

I found a good article on the internet on this subject. Enjoy: art-of-attack.blogspot.com/2007/06/are-there-errors-in-latin-vulgate.html

 

[Linda_Marie]

It’s the first time I’ve heard of that idea. Source please?

Well, perhaps I am mistaken. I have not been able to find a source. I had read somewhere that at least some of the texts were translated from the Greek back to Hebrew because the scrolls of those volumes were no longer extant in Hebrew. I don’t recall where I read it. Sorry if I have led anyone astray.

I did find this information on the Masoretic text which you may find interesting:

The Text of the Hebrew Bible

 

[stormstopper]

Nope, no legitimate concerns regarding the Vulgate. It has been the Gold Standard bible for the Church from the time of Jerome until the Novo Vulgate.

(other of course than being… you know… catholic )

Edit
BTW which translation? Douay? That’s a great bible.

I am a Protestant and I MOST DEFINITELY object! Many examples could be given, but the Vulgate included the erroneous inclusion of “penance” into the text, which is a verifiable fact of history that you are obviously unaware of.

“Be converted and DO PENANCE for all your iniquities…” (Ezek 18:30)

“Except you DO PENANCE you shall all likewise persih” (Luke 13:5).

“DO PENANCE and be baptized every one of you” (Acts 2:38).

The above Latin Vulgate rendering of the original Hebrew and Greek text of the Old and New Testament makes it apparent that these were improper translations—(now conveniently corrected). In each case, the word translated “do penance” means “repent”. Repentance means recognizing sin as an offense to God and to resolutely determine to forsake it. Consequently, that is a completely different concept from trying to expiate the guilt and punishment for sin through a series of good works. God wants REPENTANCE, not penance.

Now while it is true that most modern translations accurately use the word “repentance”— the fact remains that the Vulgate was incorrect! As for the Douay-Rheims being such a great translation----BALONEY. That edition actually followed the Latin Vulgate of Jerome, who mistakenly translated the pronouns “ipsa” (feminine) instead of “ipse” (Masculine) in Genesis 3:15. That version read, “I will put enmities between thee and the woman and thy seed and her seed: SHE shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for HER heel.”
The highlighted words should be “HE” and “HIS”. The mistake was never corrected until recent times! Hard as it may be for you to believe, this is the first thread in the tapestry which began the devaluation of the work of Jesus Christ and its replacement with the elevation of Mary. Right here we can witness the “snowball” of Marian superiority rolling down the slope of Catholic fantasy, until she ultimately becomes, in their minds, sinless and immaculately deceived.
The footnote in the D.R. reads, “for it is by HER seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head”. This is a lie straight from the pit of hell, for the Bible tells us that, "For this purpose the Son of God was manifest, that HE might destroy the works of the devil (1 Jn 3:8). Again, “And the God of peace [not Mary!] shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.” (Rms 16:20).

Wake up Catholic folk and admit you’ve been duped!

 

[bksumm]

Quoted from Stormstopper: Wake up Catholic folk and admit you’ve been duped!

Stormstopper: Thanks for your response…these are some of the polemics I was looking for because I am ultimately looking for the truth. BTW I have encountered examples of protestant bias in their translations of the bible.

Will check out your claims and get back…perhaps you have been duped Do you read Latin?

 

[crazzeto]

I am a Protestant and I MOST DEFINITELY object! Many examples could be given, but the Vulgate included the erroneous inclusion of “penance” into the text, which is a verifiable fact of history that you are obviously unaware of.

“Be converted and DO PENANCE for all your iniquities…” (Ezek 18:30)

“Except you DO PENANCE you shall all likewise persih” (Luke 13:5).

“DO PENANCE and be baptized every one of you” (Acts 2:38).

The above Latin Vulgate rendering of the original Hebrew and Greek text of the Old and New Testament makes it apparent that these were improper translations—(now conveniently corrected). In each case, the word translated “do penance” means “repent”. Repentance means recognizing sin as an offense to God and to resolutely determine to forsake it. Consequently, that is a completely different concept from trying to expiate the guilt and punishment for sin through a series of good works. God wants REPENTANCE, not penance.

Now while it is true that most modern translations accurately use the word “repentance”— the fact remains that the Vulgate was incorrect! As for the Douay-Rheims being such a great translation----BALONEY. That edition actually followed the Latin Vulgate of Jerome, who mistakenly translated the pronouns “ipsa” (feminine) instead of “ipse” (Masculine) in Genesis 3:15. That version read, “I will put enmities between thee and the woman and thy seed and her seed: SHE shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for HER heel.”
The highlighted words should be “HE” and “HIS”. The mistake was never corrected until recent times! Hard as it may be for you to believe, this is the first thread in the tapestry which began the devaluation of the work of Jesus Christ and its replacement with the elevation of Mary. Right here we can witness the “snowball” of Marian superiority rolling down the slope of Catholic fantasy, until she ultimately becomes, in their minds, sinless and immaculately deceived.
The footnote in the D.R. reads, “for it is by HER seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head”. This is a lie straight from the pit of hell, for the Bible tells us that, "For this purpose the Son of God was manifest, that HE might destroy the works of the devil (1 Jn 3:8). Again, “And the God of peace [not Mary!] shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.” (Rms 16:20).

Wake up Catholic folk and admit you’ve been duped!

No it wasn’t incorrect, it’s actually totally and completely accurate. What’s going on here is you’re basically just trying to advise God how the bible should be altered to be more friendly to Protestant theology. Unfortunetly, the truth is what it is.