Questions about Divino Afflante Spiritu

[Manfred]

1. And if the Tridentine Synod wished “that all should use as authentic” the Vulgate Latin version, this, as all know, applies only to the Latin Church and to the public use of the same Scriptures; nor does it, doubtless, in any way diminish the authority and value of the original texts. For there was no question then of these texts, but of the Latin versions, which were in circulation at that time, and of these the same Council rightly declared to be preferable that which “had been approved by its long-continued use for so many centuries in the Church.” Hence this special authority or as they say, authenticity of the Vulgate was not affirmed by the Council particularly for critical reasons, but rather because of its legitimate use in the Churches throughout so many centuries; by which use indeed the same is shown, in the sense in which the Church has understood and understands it, to be free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals; so that, as the Church herself testifies and affirms, it may be quoted safely and without fear of error in disputations, in lectures and in preaching; and so its authenticity is not specified primarily as critical, but rather as juridical.

I’m having problems understanding the above paragraph from Pope Pius XII’s Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943).

• if the Latin Vulgate was held as authentic by Trent, how was it explicitly clear that this was the case “only (for) the Latin Church and (for) public use of the same Scriptures”?
• what does it mean that “there was no question then of these (original language) texts”? their authenticity? the state of the preserved copies?
• how is one to interpret “(the Vulgate’s) authenticity is not specified primarily as critical, but rather as juridical”? that only those texts which speak of “faith and morals” are inerrant?
• is it still the case that the Vulgate “may be quoted safely and without fear of error in disputations, in lectures and in preaching”? specifically, does this extend to the Nova Vulgata?

 

[porthos11]

1. And if the Tridentine Synod wished “that all should use as authentic” the Vulgate Latin version, this, as all know, applies only to the Latin Church and to the public use of the same Scriptures; nor does it, doubtless, in any way diminish the authority and value of the original texts. For there was no question then of these texts, but of the Latin versions, which were in circulation at that time, and of these the same Council rightly declared to be preferable that which “had been approved by its long-continued use for so many centuries in the Church.” Hence this special authority or as they say, authenticity of the Vulgate was not affirmed by the Council particularly for critical reasons, but rather because of its legitimate use in the Churches throughout so many centuries; by which use indeed the same is shown, in the sense in which the Church has understood and understands it, to be free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals; so that, as the Church herself testifies and affirms, it may be quoted safely and without fear of error in disputations, in lectures and in preaching; and so its authenticity is not specified primarily as critical, but rather as juridical.

I’m having problems understanding the above paragraph from Pope Pius XII’s Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943).

• if the Latin Vulgate was held as authentic by Trent, how was it explicitly clear that this was the case “only (for) the Latin Church and (for) public use of the same Scriptures”?

Hi Manfred,

Well, Trent basically means the Vulgate is free from errors in faith and morals, and declares it as the official Bible for liturgical use of the Latin Church. I don’t have Trent on hand right now, but I would say that it’s only logical since the Latin Church used, well, Latin. It was never the official Bible for the Eastern Catholic churches.

The Eastern Christians have always had their own Bible translations for liturgical use. The Byzantine Catholics, for example used the Septuagint and the Greek New Testament, while the Maronites used the Syriac/Aramaic versions.

• what does it mean that “there was no question then of these (original language) texts”? their authenticity? the state of the preserved copies?

Yes, I take it to mean that even the preserved copies of the time of Trent were quite accurate by the standards of the day.

• how is one to interpret “(the Vulgate’s) authenticity is not specified primarily as critical, but rather as juridical”? that only those texts which speak of “faith and morals” are inerrant?

This means the Church did not adopt the Vulgate primarily on critical grounds, but on the grounds of its long-accepted standing and use in the Latin Church. Meaning, it didn’t use linguistic accuracy as its prime criterion for that acceptance. It doesn’t say that only “faith and morals” texts are inerrant. In fact, this is flatly rejected by the Second Vatican Council.

• is it still the case that the Vulgate “may be quoted safely and without fear of error in disputations, in lectures and in preaching”? specifically, does this extend to the Nova Vulgata?

Trent referred specifically to St. Jerome’s Vulgate. This is just my opinion but the NV can be quoted safely and without fear of error but only with the same confidence I would quote from modern translations. But I would probably prefer to quote from the NV rather than from St. Jerome’s Vulgate.

 

[Manfred]

1. Wherefore let him diligently apply himself so as to acquire daily a greater facility in biblical as well as in other oriental languages and to support his interpretation by the aids which all branches of philology supply. This indeed St. Jerome strove earnestly to achieve, as far as the science of his time permitted; to this also aspired with untiring zeal and no small fruit not a few of the great exegetes of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, although the knowledge of languages then was much less than at the present day. In like manner therefore ought we to explain the original text which, having been written by the inspired author himself, has more authority and greater weight than any even the very best translation, whether ancient or modern; this can be done all the more easily and fruitfully, if to the knowledge of languages be joined a real skill in literary criticism of the same text.
2. The great importance which should be attached to this kind of criticism was aptly pointed out by Augustine, when, among the precepts to be recommended to the student of the Sacred Books, he put in the first place the care to possess a corrected text. “The correction of the codices”–so says this most distinguished Doctor of the Church–“should first of all engage the attention of those who wish to know the Divine Scripture so that the uncollected may give place to the corrected.”[23] In the present day indeed this art, which is called textual criticism and which is used with great and praiseworthy results in the editions of profane writings, is also quite rightly employed in the case of the Sacred Books, because of that very reverence which is due to the Divine Oracles. For its very purpose is to insure that the sacred text be restored, as perfectly as possible, be purified from the corruptions due to the carelessness of the copyists and be freed, as far as may be done, from glosses and omissions, from the interchange and repetition of words and from all other kinds of mistakes, which are wont to make their way gradually into writings handed down through many centuries.

• from Pope Pius XII’s Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943)

For those of you who know Hebrew or Greek: do the critical editions we have today meet the criteria underscored in paragraph 17 above?

Is the de-emphasis of the Vulgate in current biblical scholarship in accord with the statement underscored in paragraph 16 above?

 

[thistle]

Hi Manfred,

Well, Trent basically means the Vulgate is free from errors in faith and morals, and declares it as the official Bible for liturgical use of the Latin Church. I don’t have Trent on hand right now, but I would say that it’s only logical since the Latin Church used, well, Latin. It was never the official Bible for the Eastern Catholic churches.

The Eastern Christians have always had their own Bible translations for liturgical use. The Byzantine Catholics, for example used the Septuagint and the Greek New Testament, while the Maronites used the Syriac/Aramaic versions.

Yes, I take it to mean that even the preserved copies of the time of Trent were quite accurate by the standards of the day.

This means the Church did not adopt the Vulgate primarily on critical grounds, but on the grounds of its long-accepted standing and use in the Latin Church. Meaning, it didn’t use linguistic accuracy as its prime criterion for that acceptance. It doesn’t say that only “faith and morals” texts are inerrant. In fact, this is flatly rejected by the Second Vatican Council.

Trent referred specifically to St. Jerome’s Vulgate. This is just my opinion but the NV can be quoted safely and without fear of error but only with the same confidence I would quote from modern translations. But I would probably prefer to quote from the NV rather than from St. Jerome’s Vulgate.

I thought there are no exising copies of St Jerome’s Vulgate so how would one be able to quote from it?

 

[Manfred]

Hi, porthos.

Thanks for jumping in!

The Eastern Christians have always had their own Bible translations for liturgical use. The Byzantine Catholics, for example used the Septuagint and the Greek New Testament, while the Maronites used the Syriac/Aramaic versions.

OK, so the Pope’s call for corrected copies of the original-language texts would definitely cover those you mention above; this may explain why only the Vulgate gets singled out in many places of this encyclical.

Yes, I take it to mean that even the preserved copies of the time of Trent were quite accurate by the standards of the day.

Then why wasn’t the D-R translated directly from these instead of the Vulgate? I took it to mean the authenticity was not in question, rather than the state of the manuscripts.

This means the Church did not adopt the Vulgate primarily on critical grounds, but on the grounds of its long-accepted standing and use in the Latin Church. Meaning, it didn’t use linguistic accuracy as its prime criterion for that acceptance. It doesn’t say that only “faith and morals” texts are inerrant. In fact, this is flatly rejected by the Second Vatican Council.

My opinion: whenever alterations or glosses “crept into” copies of the Vulgate, they were not easily detected since they introduced no errors in faith and morals, even though they may not have helped the cause of “biblical honesty”; only comparison with critical texts would make these evident.

Trent referred specifically to St. Jerome’s Vulgate. This is just my opinion but the NV can be quoted safely and without fear of error but only with the same confidence I would quote from modern translations. But I would probably prefer to quote from the NV rather than from St. Jerome’s Vulgate.

This would seem to be implied from what Pius XII wrote.

 

[porthos11]

In like manner therefore ought we to explain the original text which, having been written by the inspired author himself, has more authority and greater weight than any even the very best translation, whether ancient or modern; this can be done all the more easily and fruitfully, if to the knowledge of languages be joined a real skill in literary criticism of the same text.

This is what I’ve always pointed out. The Church isn’t a Vulgate-onlyist, and this clearly points to the greater authority of the original languages.

For its very purpose is to insure that the sacred text be restored, as perfectly as possible, be purified from the corruptions due to the carelessness of the copyists and be freed, as far as may be done, from glosses and omissions, from the interchange and repetition of words and from all other kinds of mistakes, which are wont to make their way gradually into writings handed down through many centuries.

• from Pope Pius XII’s Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943)

For those of you who know Hebrew or Greek: do the critical editions we have today meet the criteria underscored in paragraph 17 above?

I’m not an expert in Hebrew or Greek, but I’ve done a bit of reading of the various Greek traditions (e.g. Westcott-Hort, TR, GNT/UBS)

With regards to the Greek New Testament, there is much to affirm that the critical editions we have today are very, very faithful to the originals (although there are some passages that have been generally accepted as canonical even though manuscript evidence is much weaker, e.g. John 7:53-8:11, but that’s accepted on Church authority).

The Old Testament is more difficult because the Hebrew has suffered much in transmission. It would seem that most of the MT is right, but much is obscure and even damaged. If you have an NAB, scan through the Book of Job and you will see several lines that simply go
…

This means the NAB editors considered the text too corrupted to even attempt a conjectural emendation. The JB also does this, but to a lesser degree. The RSV retains the verse order and attempts to translate them anyway. For these passages, one can try referring to the other ancient versions, such as the LXX, the Vulgate, or the Syriac.

Is the de-emphasis of the Vulgate in current biblical scholarship in accord with the statement underscored in paragraph 16 above?

DAS never attempted to render the Vulgate obsolete, but it did encourage Bible scholars to turn to the originals so as to advance Catholic studies. Even the Vulgate should benefit from those advances.

But in terms of Biblical scholarship, it is a grave mistake to disregard the Vulgate. The Vulgate is an ancient manuscript and does hold much value in reconstructing the Hebrew.

 

[Manfred]

If you have an NAB, scan through the Book of Job and you will see several lines that simply go
…

This means the NAB editors considered the text too corrupted to even attempt a conjectural emendation. The JB also does this, but to a lesser degree. The RSV retains the verse order and attempts to translate them anyway. For these passages, one can try referring to the other ancient versions, such as the LXX, the Vulgate, or the Syriac.

in terms of Biblical scholarship, it is a grave mistake to disregard the Vulgate. The Vulgate is an ancient manuscript and does hold much value in reconstructing the Hebrew.

It would appear, at least, that the translators of the NAB de-emphasized the role of the Vulgate so much that they had nowhere to turn for those parts of Job to which you refer. The RSV did not disregard the Vulgate, since it appears in the footnotes on many pages in the OT of the RSV-CE.

 

[porthos11]

It would appear, at least, that the translators of the NAB de-emphasized the role of the Vulgate so much that they had nowhere to turn for those parts of Job to which you refer. The RSV did not disregard the Vulgate, since it appears in the footnotes on many pages in the OT of the RSV-CE.

Yep. I think that was a mistake. The NAB editors could have used the Vulgate, or the LXX and then simply put a footnote that could have said something to the likes of ("Vg. This passage is so obscure that it is impossible to reconstruct to a reasonable degree of certainty.)

However, to their credit, they do mention the corresponding Vulgate line in the footnotes.