Which is better the Vulgate or the Nova Vulgate?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RedSoxFan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RedSoxFan

Guest
Haven’t read either one so for those who have, which is better?
 
I got the idea for this thread from this Manfred quote…

"Good and Gentle People,

i’ve been reading through this and other related threads (Which Catholic Bible is best? Your views on the NAB) with much amusement, since most of this has been hashed out numerous times and will continue to be for as long as these Forums operate. Now I have a comment:

Does anyone really believe that Benedict XVI or any one else in the Holy See who pens a document actually has a copy of the RSV(-CE) in front of him? I would submit that the writer has the Nova Vulgata at hand, since, after all, the document that will emanate from Rome will be in LATIN, and the NV was indeed translated from the original languages.

Now, as far as the translation into English of any of the Papal or Curial documents, the RSV(-CE) may very well be the English version of choice, the rationale being that it (1) comes from the original languages, and (2) it more closely tracks the NV than say, the (R)NAB or the (N)JB. But “more closely” is just that; it does not PERFECTLY track the NV, it just does it better and in more places than do the others I’ve mentioned. And there are places where it diverges from the NV. Try to keep this in mind."
 
:twocents: I hold both the [Clementine] Vulgate and the *Nova Vulgata *in high regard.

🤷
tee
 
Some one mentioned a while back that if Latin is a dead language why is there a new vulgate? I’m guessing the difference would be the use of modern archaeological finds?
 
RedSoxFan said:
I got the idea for this thread from this Manfred quote…

"Good and Gentle People,

i’ve been reading through this and other related threads (Which Catholic Bible is best? Your views on the NAB) with much amusement, since most of this has been hashed out numerous times and will continue to be for as long as these Forums operate. Now I have a comment:

Does anyone really believe that Benedict XVI or any one else in the Holy See who pens a document actually has a copy of the RSV(-CE) in front of him? I would submit that the writer has the Nova Vulgata at hand, since, after all, the document that will emanate from Rome will be in LATIN, and the NV was indeed translated from the original languages.

Now, as far as the translation into English of any of the Papal or Curial documents, the RSV(-CE) may very well be the English version of choice, the rationale being that it (1) comes from the original languages, and (2) it more closely tracks the NV than say, the (R)NAB or the (N)JB. But “more closely” is just that; it does not PERFECTLY track the NV, it just does it better and in more places than do the others I’ve mentioned. And there are places where it diverges from the NV. Try to keep this in mind."
Click to expand...
How could you possibly know which Bible B16 used?I’m sure going in and out of Latin is easy for B16. As any good scholar he would have a multiples of translation and could probably pull codex Vaticanus or any codices,papyri he wanted- why just the Vulgata?I really, really doubt that he would use only one text when so may are available to him.😉
 
RedSoxFan said:
Some one mentioned a while back that if Latin is a dead language why is there a new vulgate? I’m guessing the difference would be the use of modern archaeological finds?
Click to expand...
Yes, I believe that to be the case.

On the one hand, St Jerome had access to sources which no longer exist, so he has the advantage there.

On the other hand, we have access to modern scripture scholarship, which he did not have.

(To tell the truth, though I have occassion to use each depending on the circumstance, I have rarely done a side by side comparison to know of any remarkable differences)

PS.
Latin ain’t dead. 😉
tee
 
Hopefully I can resurrect it like Jesus on Easter Sunday, at least for me personally. 😃
 
Clementine Vulgate by far over the Nova Vulgate. I wish more Bibles including the Nova Vulgate were like the Clementine
 
RedSoxFan,

Thanks for the “shout out”! 🙂

Here’s another one for ya: does anyone know if the Douay-Rheims, translated from the Clementine Vg, was used in any of the Eastern-rite Catholic churches, for vernacular readings of the Epistle and Gospel, in the days prior to the RSV-CE, JB, NAB, all of which are translated “from the original languages”?
 
Nova Vulgata is in many passages, word for word the same as the Clementine Vulgate, but then in many other passages it is very substantially different, being a paraphrase of the text, NOT a literal translation of the source text in any language. It is as if there were two schools of thought on how to prepare the NV, and instead of coming to some kind of agreement, they divided up the text, making one portion a paraphrase and the other a modest edit of the Clementine.

Paraphrase translations are not fitting for use as a source text for translations into any language, so an English translation of the NV would not be useful. Nor would any paraphrase translation be appropriate as the arbitrator for uncertain readings of translations from other source texts.

I think that most persons who prefer the NV do so merely because it is ‘approved’. This is a rather Pharisaical attitude. The Bible is the word of God. Should we not consider the merits of each version of the text? Do any of you members commenting on these two versions actually read Latin? Or have you used both the Clementine and NV texts?
 
Ron_Conte said:
.

I think that most persons who prefer the NV do so merely because it is ‘approved’. This is a rather Pharisaical attitude. The Bible is the word of God. Should we not consider the merits of each version of the text?
Click to expand...
I do agree with Ron. Most people prefer the NV and not only the NV but other translations merely because it is “approved”
 
Ron_Conte said:
Paraphrase translations are not fitting for use as a source text for translations into any language, so an English translation of the NV would not be useful.
Click to expand...
For the purposes of liturgical translation, *Liturgiam Authenticam *states that only the source languages are suitable to be translated, never a translation of a translation.

However it does (as I am sure you are aware) call for its use as an auxilliary tool.

tee
 
I think it is Pharisaical to treat LA as if it were the sole determinent of how Bible translations should be done. Rules are not teachings. Teachings of Divine Revelation are Divinely revealed. Rules and norms are not.

Since the Church used the Douai (original) and the Challoner-Douai and then the Confraternity edition, streatching back several hundred years, it is absurd to claim that no legitimate translation is based on the Latin as a source text.

As for differences between the CV and the NV, that is too extensive a topic for a post. But I will note a few significant differences:
CV
*
{2:11} Mulier in silentio discat cum omni subiectione.
{2:12} Docere autem mulieri non permitto, neque dominari in virum: sed esse in silentio.
NV
11 Mulier in tranquillitate discat cum omni subiectione;
12 docere autem mulieri non permitto neque dominari in virum, sed esse in tranquillitate.

CV
[Ephesii]
{5:22} Mulieres viris suis subditæ sint, sicut Domino:
NV
22 Mulieres viris suis sicut Domino,

There are numerous passages that I have noticed over the last 4 plus years that are substantially rephrased, as anyone familiar with both editions will know. But I don’t have time to do an exhaustive comparision.*
 
Ron_Conte said:
I think it is Pharisaical to treat LA as if it were the sole determinent of how Bible translations should be done. Rules are not teachings. Teachings of Divine Revelation are Divinely revealed. Rules and norms are not.

Since the Church used the Douai (original) and the Challoner-Douai and then the Confraternity edition, streatching back several hundred years, it is absurd to claim that no legitimate translation is based on the Latin as a source text.

As for differences between the CV and the NV, that is too extensive a topic for a post. But I will note a few significant differences:
CV
*
{2:11} Mulier in silentio* discat cum omni subiectione.
{2:12} Docere autem mulieri non permitto, neque dominari in virum: sed esse in silentio.
NV
11 Mulier in tranquillitate discat cum omni subiectione;
12 docere autem mulieri non permitto neque dominari in virum, sed esse in tranquillitate.

CV
[Ephesii]
{5:22} Mulieres viris suis subditæ sint, sicut Domino:
NV
22 Mulieres viris suis sicut Domino,

There are numerous passages that I have noticed over the last 4 plus years that are substantially rephrased, as anyone familiar with both editions will know. But I don’t have time to do an exhaustive comparision.

Again, I will simply say that those who bring up “Pharisee” are those who refuse to obey Holy Mother Church.

The NV is not merely approved; it has been promulgated as the official Latin Bible of the Latin Church, by authority of the Holy Father.

Liturgiam Authenticam, as an Instruction, is not a suggestion, but has the force of law, which calls for obedience and assent, regardless of one’s own personal opinion.

To bring up the “Pharisee” word simply shows one’s hardheadedness and refusal to recognize the authority of the Church.
Click to expand...
 
Ron_Conte said:
I think that most persons who prefer the NV do so merely because it is ‘approved’. This is a rather Pharisaical attitude. The Bible is the word of God. Should we not consider the merits of each version of the text? Do any of you members commenting on these two versions actually read Latin? Or have you used both the Clementine and NV texts?
Click to expand...
As a matter of fact, yes, or at least we try. Do you think we’re so dumb as to comment on Bible translations without having at least some study into them? Do you seriously expect us to take your opinion over that of the Church?

Merely accepting the NV on the basis of its promulgation as “editio typica” should be sufficient reason enough for those of us who love the Church and accept her authority. That you refuse to obey the Church, her Instructions and promulgations leads me to question your loyalty and humility.

How about you? Have you even bothered to study the Greek at least?
 
The Catholic Faith includes beliefs and practices, teachings on faith and morals, as well as rules and norms.

the two swords of the Church:

I. Spiritual Authority of the Church (the teaching authority or Magisterium)

A. Infallible teachings:
  1. solemn definitions of the Pope
  2. solemn definitions of Ecumenical Councils
  3. teachings of the Universal Magisterium
B. Non-infallible teachings, i.e. all teachings of the Magisterium which do not fall under A.; these have a limited possibility of error and are non-irreformable

II. Temporal Authority of the Church:
includes rules, norms, any Canons that are not direct implementations of teachings on faith and morals, rules for religious orders, decisions of the Holy See, and of the local ordinary of dioceses, temporal decisions of the Pope, of Councils and Synods, etc. These are fallible, not infallible and not non-infallible.

It is a serious error to treat rules, norms, and various decisions of the temporal authority of the Church as if these were the same as infallible or even non-infallible teachings.

Also, blind unthinking obedience to temporal decisions is not loyalty or faithfulness or humility. We should consider whether the norms of LA or other documents need revision, or admit of exception, or contain some faulty decisions on temporal matters.
 
It is a shame that we don’t have an English translation of the Nova Vulgata.

Would the world end if we had one?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top