Some questions about the Clementine Vulgate and Nova Vulgata

[Dolezal]

Pope Benedict said in his catecheses on St. Jerome that he “was able, with the assistance later of other collaborators, to produce a better translation: this constitutes the so-called “Vulgate”, the “official” text of the Latin Church which was recognized as such by the Council of Trent and which, after the recent revision, continues to be the “official” Latin text of the Church.”

According to Wikipedia, the Nova Vulgata is now the official text for the liturgy (of the Latin Church), but, if I’m not mistaken, the Clementine Vulgate is still used in the Extraordinary Form. Does this mean that the Clementine text of the Vulgate is still an official text of the Church, or is it merely retained insofar as it part of the EF?

How much of a revision is the Nova Vulgata? I am assuming (since the Nova Vulgata was not intended as a reconstruction of the older Vulgate(s)) that the Clementine text of the Vulgate is closer to the Vulgate text(s) which the Council of Trent declared “authentic in public readings, discourses, and disputes, and that nobody might dare or presume to reject it on any pretense.” Is the text of the Nova Vulgata similar enough for the Council of Trent’s statement to apply to it? Pope Benedict seems to suggest so. But, if not, shouldn’t we assume that the Clementine Vulgate is still an official text of the Church (in itself)?

 

[JerryZ]

I think you have some misunderstanding.

The translations that were “revised” were from the Latin (original) to English for the OF missal.
The EF missal being in Latin suffered NO modifications.

Also it is very relevant for you to know that the translations of the OF in Spanish for example did not need any “adjustments” because they were closer translations and in line with the Latin meaning and substance.

 

[Cranch]

I think you have some misunderstanding.

The translations that were “revised” were from the Latin (original) to English for the OF missal.
The EF missal being in Latin suffered NO modifications.

Also it is very relevant for you to know that the translations of the OF in Spanish for example did not need any “adjustments” because they were closer translations and in line with the Latin meaning and substance.

No Jerry, you have misinterpreted Dolezal’s post. He is citing one of Pope Benedict’s general audiences from 2007 in which he discussed St. Jerome. The Pope’s quote is indeed in reference to Jerome’s Latin Vulgate bible and the “recent revision” is a reference to the Nova Vulgata, the update of the Vulgate.

Dolezal’s reference to the Extraordinary Form is about the use of the older Clementine Vulgate for the Latin readings from Scripture (the Propers) even though the Nova Vulgata is now considered the official Latin bible.

None of this is about the recent corrections to the English of the OF.

Dolezal: The Clementine Vulgate is still used in the EF. The normative Missal is that of 1962. Trent’s declaration regarding the Vulgate was applied to the Clementine Vulgate as this version was the ultimate result of that Council’s call to standardize the Latin Vulgate texts. The Pope obviously feels the Nova Vulgata’s official status is a continuation of the judgement of Trent and so it must stil be “the Vulgate.” There is a history of ongoing updating to the text. The first effort to standardize the Vulgate per Trent was the edition of Pope Sixtus V which was quickly replaced by the Clementine. I think the Nova Vulgata is seen as a further refinement in that vein. I think there can be only one official Latin text, but that doesn’t mean there can’t be more than one acceptable Latin text. Trent’s approval of the Vulgate before the Nova Vulgata remains in force. FWIW, I think Jerome would have no difficulty recognizing his work in any of these versions.

 

[Dolezal]

Dolezal: The Clementine Vulgate is still used in the EF. The normative Missal is that of 1962. Trent’s declaration regarding the Vulgate was applied to the Clementine Vulgate as this version was the ultimate result of that Council’s call to standardize the Latin Vulgate texts. The Pope obviously feels the Nova Vulgata’s official status is a continuation of the judgement of Trent and so it must stil be “the Vulgate.” There is a history of ongoing updating to the text. The first effort to standardize the Vulgate per Trent was the edition of Pope Sixtus V which was quickly replaced by the Clementine. I think the Nova Vulgata is seen as a further refinement in that vein. I think there can be only one official Latin text, but that doesn’t mean there can’t be more than one acceptable Latin text. Trent’s approval of the Vulgate before the Nova Vulgata remains in force.

Thanks for your answer. I agree now that there can or should be only one official text, which must now be the Nova Vulgata, but that the statement of Trent applies to both texts, as you suggest, because the Holy Father seems to have publicly extended or applied the statement to include the Nova Vulgata.

FWIW, I think Jerome would have no difficulty recognizing his work in any of these versions.

A quick look shows the Nova Vulgata closer to the original text in some places, such as Genesis 3.15. I’m happy that they changed it back to “he will crush your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.” I am also happy that the Nova Vulgata still reads, in Isaiah 7.14, “behold, a virgin shall conceive.” Since I do not think the Hebrew word “almah” ever meant a young woman who is not a virgin, but that is for another discussion. The Psalms though were heavily revised. I wonder how close they are to St. Jerome’s original translation of the Psalms from the (pre-Masoretic) Hebrew, which was never really incorporated into the “official” Vulgate.

 

[patrick457]

I should tell you that the Vulgate Tobit and the NV Tobit are radically different from one another.

 

[Dolezal]

I should tell you that the Vulgate Tobit and the NV Tobit are radically different from one another.

Yes, I quickly read that thread before and forgot about it. How are such differences even possible? Whether, for example, the dog wags his tail does not seem very important, but then it would also not make sense to say it was a later addition. Is it possible that two different but equally valid traditions were written down? In the Greek texts, the angel Raphael tells both Tobiasses to write down everything that happened (12.20). Perhaps one account came from the son and the other from the father? Hence the differences.

 

[patrick457]

Yes, I quickly read that thread before and forgot about it. How are such differences even possible? Whether, for example, the dog wags his tail does not seem very important, but then it would also not make sense to say it was a later addition. Is it possible that two different but equally valid traditions were written down? In the Greek texts, the angel Raphael tells both Tobiasses to write down everything that happened (12.20). Perhaps one account came from the son and the other from the father? Hence the differences.

The simple answer is this: the text of the deuterocanonical books and apocrypha do not really display the same level of unification as the protocanonical books of Scripture do. And since said protocanonical books themsleves existed in different textual recensions, at least before the proto-Masoretic text became the standard post-AD 70, that should tell you something. While people were generally meticulous when it comes to the text of books like the Torah, they were generally more lax when it comes to the ‘other works’ like Tobit.

The thing is, Tobit did not simply come down to us in two versions.

We have, first and foremost, sixty-nine fragments or groups of fragments from five manuscripts of Tobit (4Q196-200), dating from the period between 100 BC to AD 25, found in Cave 4 in Qumran in 1952. Four of these are in Aramaic, and one (the latest) in Hebrew. Thirty-four tiny fragments out of the sixty-nine are unidentified, giving us thirty-five identified fragments in total. These manuscripts themselves exhibit some degree of minor variance with each other, which shows us that there was not really a fixed text of Tobit during the 1st century BC or the 1st century AD.

For the Greek texts, we have first of all the shorter recension known as Greek I (G1), which is the one found in Codex Vaticanus and most other Greek manuscripts of Tobit. The longer recension or Greek II (G2) is found only in its full form, with two lacunae (4:7-19b and 13:7-10b), in Codex Sinaiticus; it is partially attested in an 11th century minuscule from Mount Athos, MS 319 (aka Vatopedi 913), which gives the G2 text from 3:6 to 6:16 (thereby containing the lacuna) and the G1 text for the rest of the book. The 6th century P. Oxy. 10763 (aka MS 910) also preserves a tiny portion of this version (2:2-5, 8). The third version (Greek III or G3) is fundamentally related to G2, but not dependent on Sinaiticus. We only have a tiny bit of this so-called ‘intermediate’ version (6:9-13:8) preserved in three cursive manuscripts (44, 106, 107); said manuscripts reproduce the text of G1 for the rest of the book.

For the Latin versions, we could divide them into two categories: the Vetus Latina versions and the Vulgate version.

The first category denotes old, pre-Hieronymian Latin versions of Tobit, which are mainly related to the Sinaiticus Tobit (to the point that it can be used to understand and correct the text of G2 via comparison) but is sometimes closer to the Qumran texts than Sinaiticus. Still, one should note that the Vetus Latina manuscripts are not all of one type.

As of now, there is still no critical edition of these versions: the next best thing is an 18th century text assembled by French Benedictine monk Pierre Sabatier in the Bibliorum sacrorum latinae versiones antiquae, seu Vetus Italica (pp. 706-743), mainly based on two 9th century Latin manuscripts: Q (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, fonds lat. 93, aka MS Regius 3564) and P (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, fonds lat. 11505, aka MS Sangermanensis 4) along with readings from G (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, fonds lat. 11503, aka Sangermanensis 15 or Sangermanensis 1), which contains the text up to 13:2, and W (Rome, Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, Regin. lat. 7, aka Codex Reginensis), which contains the text only as far as 6:12, the rest being a copy of the Vulgate. Since then, two other Vetus Latina manuscripts have been studied, which illustrate the lack of ‘one type’ of the text: the 10th century R (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, fonds lat. 6, aka the Ripoll Bible), and the 9th-century X (Madrid, Biblioteca Univers. Cent. 31, aka Codex Complutensis I). Both of these have been published by the Italian scholar Francesco Vattioni in the 1970s, who also published the readings of the Tobit text found in a work attributed to St. Augustine known as the Speculum de sacra scriptura (Mirror of Holy Scripture). The text of Complutensis I is very paraphrastic, representing a much expanded form of the text found in Sabatier. Besides these, other important sources for the VL Tobit are patristic quotations.

 

[patrick457]

The translation of a translation (Latin from Hebrew from Aramaic) of Tobit made by St. Jerome, which is apparently of the same family as G1, was once the dominant version of the book in the West. We do not know for sure whether the Aramaic text used by Jerome is descended from a Semitic forebear or was based on the Greek. In any case, the Aramaic text he used seems to have been very different from the ones discovered at Qumran. The Vulgate text’s relation to the Greek versions and even to the VL recensions is really problematic, since it exhibits some considerable differences from them (although Jerome was apparently dependent on the VL). I personally think that this might be mainly due to the original version Jerome and his bilingual acquaintance were translating from, but perhaps also in part due to Jerome’s possibly rather free translation method (he admitted that his translation of Judith, which was like Tobit also from an Aramaic version, was magis sensum e sensus quam ex verbo verbum “more sense for sense than word for word;” it could very well be the same case here).

There are other versions of Tobit in other languages such as Arabic, Syriac, Coptic (Sahidic), Ethiopian, and Armenian, but these are mostly translations from the Greek (mostly G1) and are thus secondary and of little independent value. The Syriac versions are particularly interesting, since two manuscripts (Wadi Natrun, Deir es-Suryan, Syr. MS 27 and Cambridge University Library, MS Oo.1.1.2, aka the Buchanan Bible) preserve the text of G3. The first half of the Wadi Natrun manuscript (1:1-7:11) is based on both the version of the OT made by the 6th century Syrian bishop Paul of Tella from the Septuagint (the Syro-Hexapla) and G3. The Buchanan Bible says in the text that it is a translation of the Septuagint, and is most like G3. In addition, there are a number of versions of Tobit in Aramaic and Hebrew, of late/medieval date.

As for the relationship of these different versions, it was originally thought that G1 represented the original text, with G2 being a later expansion, something which came into question with the discovery of Tobit in Qumran. All in all, the five manuscripts (four in Aramaic, one in Hebrew) Tobit generally agree with G2, although they could sometimes also agree with G1. (In some instances, the text provided could be shorter or longer, or at times agree more with the text of the Vetus Latina versions over against G2.) Now the idea is that G2, due to its support by G3, the Vetus Latina versions and the Qumran Tobit fragments might have been closer to the original version, with the majority version (G1) being a later, more streamlined epitome.

 

[patrick457]

The Nova Vulgata Tobit is really based more on the Vetus Latina (Sabatier)-G2 tradition than in Jerome’s version. Compare for instance:

Greek II: “The book of the words of Tobith son of Tobiel son of Hananiel son of Adouel son of Gabael son of Raphael son of Ragouel of the descendants (lit. ‘seed’) of Asiel, of the tribe of Nephtaleim, who in the days of Enemessaros, the king of the Assyrians, was taken into captivity from Thisbe which is to the right of Kydios Nephthaleim in Upper Galilee, above Asser to the west (lit. ‘behind the setting of the sun’), left of Phogor.”

(Βίβλος λόγων Τωβιθ τοῦ Τωβιηλ τοῦ Ανανιηλ τοῦ Αδουηλ τοῦ Γαβαηλ τοῦ Ραφαηλ τοῦ Ραγουηλ ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος Ασιηλ ἐκ φυλῆς Νεφθαλιμ, ὃς ᾐχμαλωτεύθη ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ενεμεσσαρου τοῦ βασιλέως τῶν Ἀσσυρίων ἐκ Θισβης, ἥ ἐστιν ἐκ δεξιῶν Κυδιως τῆς Νεφθαλιμ ἐν τῇ ἄνω Γαλιλαίᾳ ὑπεράνω Ασσηρ ὀπίσω ὁδοῦ] δυσμῶν ἡλίου ἐξ ἀριστερῶν Φογωρ.)

Greek I: “The book of the words of Tobit son of Tobiel son of Hananiel son of Adouel son of Gabael of the descendants of Asiel, of the tribe of Nephtaleim, who was taken into captivity in the days of Enemessaros, the king of the Assyrians, from Thisbe which is to the right of Kydios Nephthaleim in Galilee, above Aser.”

(Βίβλος λόγων Τωβιτ τοῦ Τωβιηλ τοῦ Ανανιηλ τοῦ Αδουηλ τοῦ Γαβαηλ ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος Ασιηλ ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Νεφθαλιμ, ὃς ᾐχμαλωτεύθη ἐν ἡμέραις Ενεμεσσαρου τοῦ βασιλέως Ἀσσυρίων ἐκ Θισβης, ἥ ἐστιν ἐκ δεξιῶν Κυδιως τῆς Νεφθαλιμ ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ ὑπεράνω Ασηρ.)

VL (Sabatier = MS Regius 3564): “The book of the words of Thobis, son of Thobiel, son of Ananihel, son of Gabahel, son of Asihel, son of Gadalel, son of Arabei, of the tribe of Nepthalim; who was abducted into captivity in the days of Salmanassar king of the Assyrians from the city of Bihel which is to the right of Edisse, a city of Nephthalim in Upper Galilee over against Naason, beyond the road which leads to the west on the left of Raphain.”

(Liber sermonum Thobi, filii Thobiel, filii Ananihel, filii Gabahel, filii Asihel, filii Gadalel, filii Arabei, ex tribu Nepthalim; qui captiuus abductus est in diebus Salmannassar regis Assyriorum, ex Bihel ciuitate, quae est in dextera parte Edisse ciuitatis Nephtalim, in superioribus Galilaeae, contra Naasson, post uiam quae ducit in occidentem, ex sinistra parte Raphain.)

VL (Codex Complutensis I): “The beginning of the book of Tobis, son of Ananiel son of Gabi, from the tribe of Neptalim, who was led into captivity in the days of Salmanassar king of the Assyrians from the city of Biel which is to the right of Edisse, a city of Nephthalim in Upper Galilee above Naason, on the left beyond the road which leads to the west.”

(Incipit liber Tobi fili Ananiel fili Gabi ex tribu Neptalim qui captivus ductus est in diebus Salmanassar regis Assyriorum ex Biel ciuitate que est in dextera parte citiis ciuitatis Neptalim in superiora Galilee supra Naasson ex sinistra parte post uiam que ducit ad occidentem.)

VL (Codex Reginensis 7): “Tobis, son of Tobiel, son of Naniel, son of Gabiel, son of Siel, son of Gabaliel, of the tribe of Neptalim, who was led into captivity in the days of Salmanassar king of the Assyrians from the city of Gebuel which is to the right of Cydissi, a city of Nephthalim, which is above Galilee, located above Naasor, which is toward the setting sun, to the left of Raphain.”

(Tobis filii Tobiel, filii Naniel, filli Gabiel, filii Siel, filii Gabaliel, ex tribu Neptalim, qui captiuus ductus est in diebus Salmanassar regis Assyriorum ex Gebuel ciuitate, quae est a dextera parte Cydissi ciuitate ex Neptalim, quae est super Galilaeam, super Naasor posita, quae est ad occidentem solem, a sinistra parte Raphain.)

VL (Bible de Rosas): “The book of the words of Thobis, son of Ananiel (?), son of Gabel, of the tribe of Neptalim, who was led into captivity in the days of Salmanassar king of the Assyrians from the city of Abiel which is to the right of Cades, a city of Neptalim in Upper Galilee above Ramessom, beyond the road which leads to the west on the left of Niphsaim.”

(Liber sermonum Tobi filii Ananie. filii Gabel, ex tribu Neptalim, qui captiuus ductus est in diebus Salmanassar regis Assiriorum ex Abiel ciuitate quae est in dextera partes Cades ciuitatis Neptalim, in superiori Galileae, super Ramessom post uiam quae ducit in occidentem, ad sinistram partem Niphsaim.)

Vulgate (Codex Amiatinus): “Thobias (Clementine: Tobias) of the tribe and city of Nepthalim, which is in the upper parts of Galilee above Naasson, beyond the road which leads to the west, having on the left the city of Sephec (Clementine: Sephet), when he was made captive in the days of Salmanassar king of the Assyrians…”

(Thobias ex tribu et ciuitate Nepthalim quae est in superiorib(us) Galilaeae supra Naasson, post uiam quae ducit ad occidentem in sinistro habens civitatem Sephec cum captus esset in diebus Salmanassar regis Assyrioru(m).)

Nova Vulgata: “The book of the words of Thobis, son of Thobiel, son of Ananiel, son of Aduel, son of Gabael, son of Raphael, son of Raguel of the seed of Asiel, of the tribe of Nephtali, who in the days of Salmanasar, the king of the Assyrians, was taken into captivity from Thisbe which is to the right of Cades Nephthali in Upper Galilee, above Asor behind the setting of the sun, left of Phogor.”

(Liber sermonum Thobis filii Thobiel filii Ananiel filii Aduel filii Gabael filii Raphael filii Raguel ex semine Asiel, ex tribu Nephthali, qui captivus ductus est in diebus Salmanasar regis Assyriorum ex Thisbe, quae est a dextera parte Cades Nephthali in superiori Galilaea supra Asor post occidentem solem a sinistra parte Phogor.)

I notice here that the VL is a fairly faithful rendering of the G2 version.

 

[Dolezal]

Patrick, as always a very interesting read. You have given me a lot of material for further research.

(My question would have been better asked in your thread. Sorry for making you go more or less off-topic.)