Which is better the Vulgate or the Nova Vulgate?

[porthos11]

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.

We’re not talking about teachings or dogmas or doctrines or the deposit of faith. We are talking about law, which the Church has the power to promulgate. And although law is part of the temporal order, it requires assent and obedience, since it is part of the power of the keys.

No one has ever said that Liturgiam Authenticam or Divino Afflante Spiritu or Scripturarum Thesaurus are infallible. They are not, and we are not so dumb as you probably think us to be. But they to require ASSENT and OBEDIENCE.

And we have in fact read these documents, so our loyalty is not blind or unthinking. But where it comes from is reason enough. It is an Instruction, and therefore binds Catholics, including you, no matter what anyone else thinks.

 

[tobinatorstark]

we are not so dumb as you probably think us to be. But they to require ASSENT and OBEDIENCE.

And we have in fact read these documents, so our loyalty is not blind or unthinking. But where it comes from is reason enough. It is an Instruction, and therefore binds Catholics, including you, no matter what anyone else thinks.

No one said you were dumb. But your attitude towards other people when they don’t see things your way is very self-centered. Honestly I don’t think you can accept anyone’s view accept your own

 

[porthos11]

No one said you were dumb. But your attitude towards other people when they don’t see things your way is very self-centered. Honestly I don’t think you can accept anyone’s view accept your own

My opinion is simply to conform with the declarations of the Church. I don’t even see things my way. Only one opinion matters to me: that of the Holy See.

What really gets me is the low regard that is being shown for the Church’s pronouncements.

 

[tobinatorstark]

My opinion is simply to conform with the declarations of the Church. I don’t even see things my way. Only one opinion matters to me: that of the Holy See.

What really gets me is the low regard that is being shown for the Church’s pronouncements.

By all accounts Ron is right. There are many people who have high regard for the Church’s pronouncements.Striving to learn all the Church’s teaching is a long process. There are times I am wrong about what the Church and scripture teaches us, but to continually put me, Ron Conte and Jerry-Jet down is just unacceptable. You don’t know as much as you think you do. I for one feel I need to learn what I can about the Holy See and be corrected by those who know what they are talking about when I don’t see some things clearly. Ron does know what he is talking about.

 

[porthos11]

By all accounts Ron is right. There are many people who have high regard for the Church’s pronouncements.Striving to learn all the Church’s teaching is a long process. There are times I am wrong about what the Church and scripture teaches us, but to continually put me, Ron Conte and Jerry-Jet down is just unacceptable. You don’t know as much as you think you do. I for one feel I need to learn what I can about the Holy See and be corrected by those who know what they are talking about when I don’t see some things clearly. Ron does know what he is talking about.

I don’t have any high regard for Ron Conte, for more than one reason, which I won’t elaborate on here.

As for putting you down, that’s not what I want to do so much as just get an opinion from you about what the Church clearly said. Just say that you accept what the Church pronounces regarding Scripture studies, and I will get off your back.

As for Jerry-Jet, I’m more or less through with him. If you want to read someone who puts people down first, read him, not me.

 

[tobinatorstark]

I don’t have any high regard for Ron Conte, for more than one reason, which I won’t elaborate on here.

As for putting you down, that’s not what I want to do so much as just get an opinion from you about what the Church clearly said. Just say that you accept what the Church pronounces regarding Scripture studies, and I will get off your back.

As for Jerry-Jet, I’m more or less through with him. If you want to read someone who puts people down first, read him, not me.

Well, I for one have high regard for Ron Conte. I don’t always see everything his way either. I don’t ever saying that I reject what the Church pronounces regarding scripture studies. The Nova Vulgata is a decent translation, but I prefer the Clementine over the Nova Vulgata. The NAB, JB and RSV-CE are decent translations as well. I don’t particularly care for them, but they are legit translations for people to use. However, I just don’t see the RSV-CE as fit for the Catholic Church.

My main concern is if Jerome used certain texts and they were considered “accurate” then some almost 1500 years later(Jerome started in 382) they find texts and say they are “better and more accurate”, when some words and partial verses are chopped off of those that were used for centuries. I want to know how that doesn’t against Apocalypse 21:18-19 on adding and subtracting from the book, Deuteronomy 4:2 on adding to the word, but possibly subject to 2 Timothy 3:16 about all scripture being inspired to teach, reprove and correct. Obviously if one set of texts has these set of words in it and another text doesn’t, either one added to the word or one subtracted from the word. Am I right or wrong??

 

[porthos11]

Well, I for one have high regard for Ron Conte. I don’t always see everything his way either. I don’t ever saying that I reject what the Church pronounces regarding scripture studies. The Nova Vulgata is a decent translation, but I prefer the Clementine over the Nova Vulgata. The NAB, JB and RSV-CE are decent translations as well. I don’t particularly care for them, but they are legit translations for people to use. However, I just don’t see the RSV-CE as fit for the Catholic Church.

My main concern is if Jerome used certain texts and they were considered “accurate” then some almost 1500 years later(Jerome started in 382) they find texts and say they are “better and more accurate”, when some words and partial verses are chopped off of those that were used for centuries. I want to know how that doesn’t against Apocalypse 21:18-19 on adding and subtracting from the book, Deuteronomy 4:2 on adding to the word, but possibly subject to 2 Timothy 3:16 about all scripture being inspired to teach, reprove and correct. Obviously if one set of texts has these set of words in it and another text doesn’t, either one added to the word or one subtracted from the word. Am I right or wrong??

The thing is, we don’t have 100% certainty about the original inspired text, not even with the Vulgate, so we do the best we can.

I have no problem with you preferring the DR, Vulgate, or what-not, or even disliking the RSV. Use whatever you feel comfortable. I clearly do not agree with you, but I must insist that you read everything the Church has written in recent years and at the very least accept it despite your own preferences.

In hindsight, I’ve treated and challenged you like I would a theologian, while you have not made any claim, so I’m sorry if I came across as harsh. I would have no qualms about harshly challenging Conte, since he makes a big deal of his being a “theologian” (which I believe he is not) so he must be ready to defend his theses (but he shirks away and throws “Pharisee” in his wake). But you’ve said no such thing and for that, I’m sorry.

 

[Ron_Conte]

We’re not talking about teachings or dogmas or doctrines or the deposit of faith. We are talking about law, which the Church has the power to promulgate. And although law is part of the temporal order, it requires assent and obedience, since it is part of the power of the keys.

No one has ever said that Liturgiam Authenticam or Divino Afflante Spiritu or Scripturarum Thesaurus are infallible. They are not, and we are not so dumb as you probably think us to be. But they to require ASSENT and OBEDIENCE.

And we have in fact read these documents, so our loyalty is not blind or unthinking. But where it comes from is reason enough. It is an Instruction, and therefore binds Catholics, including you, no matter what anyone else thinks.

LA and DAS and other similar documents are not laws. (Canon Law is the law of the Church.) They are not binding on all Catholics, as if every comment in every document were a law.

My point above is that different degrees and types of assent are required:

Infallible teachings require the full assent of faith

Non-infallible teachings require the religious submission of will and intellect,
a lesser degree of assent that is open to some faithful dissent

Temporal decisions and various non-doctrinal statements in documents of the Pope or the Holy See are generally open to a farily broad possibility of disagreement on particular points. Also, Canon Law is in some points open to exceptions and reasonable dissent.

The current Pope and the previous Pope are/were both fairly conservative, but there may well be future Popes who are more liberal or even more conservative than you would like. You might not find yourself agreeing with every statement in every document, nor with every temporal decision.

But as concerns Latin Bible versions, the Sixtine edition prepared and approved by Pope Sixtus V was the officially approved edition, and the Pope forbid any future changes to it. And yet soon after we had the Clementine editions, and now the Neo-Vulgate. It is not so definitive as it may seem.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

No translation is perfect but I think that the Nova Vulgata is better than all others.

I really do believe that an English translation of it would make alot of people unhappy.

Why is that?

 

[porthos11]

LA and DAS and other similar documents are not laws. (Canon Law is the law of the Church.) They are not binding on all Catholics, as if every comment in every document were a law.

My point above is that different degrees and types of assent are required:

Infallible teachings require the full assent of faith

Non-infallible teachings require the religious submission of will and intellect,
a lesser degree of assent that is open to some faithful dissent

Temporal decisions and various non-doctrinal statements in documents of the Pope or the Holy See are generally open to a farily broad possibility of disagreement on particular points. Also, Canon Law is in some points open to exceptions and reasonable dissent.

The current Pope and the previous Pope are/were both fairly conservative, but there may well be future Popes who are more liberal or even more conservative than you would like. You might not find yourself agreeing with every statement in every document, nor with every temporal decision.

But you can be assured that I will comply with their directives, whether or not I agree with them.

But as concerns Latin Bible versions, the Sixtine edition prepared and approved by Pope Sixtus V was the officially approved edition, and the Pope forbid any future changes to it. And yet soon after we had the Clementine editions, and now the Neo-Vulgate. It is not so definitive as it may seem.

And now, the Nova Vulgata is the duly promulgated version, until a future Pope says otherwise.

 

[tobinatorstark]

No translation is perfect but I think that the Nova Vulgata is better than all others.

I really do believe that an English translation of it would make alot of people unhappy.

Why is that?

honestly I don’t think it would make a lot of people unhappy if there was an English translation of the Nova Vulgata. I would imagine it would be somewhat of a cross between the NAB and RSV-CE. Many here seem to think that the RSV-CE is an excellent Bible and many also feel that the NAB is a horrible Bible. I still think that it was somehow overlooked in getting an English translation.

 

[tobinatorstark]

The thing is, we don’t have 100% certainty about the original inspired text, not even with the Vulgate, so we do the best we can.

I have no problem with you preferring the DR, Vulgate, or what-not, or even disliking the RSV. Use whatever you feel comfortable. I clearly do not agree with you, but I must insist that you read everything the Church has written in recent years and at the very least accept it despite your own preferences.

In hindsight, I’ve treated and challenged you like I would a theologian, while you have not made any claim, so I’m sorry if I came across as harsh. I would have no qualms about harshly challenging Conte, since he makes a big deal of his being a “theologian” (which I believe he is not) so he must be ready to defend his theses (but he shirks away and throws “Pharisee” in his wake). But you’ve said no such thing and for that, I’m sorry.

This is a the answer I was expecting from you. There are certainly answers we may not know partaining to the scripture when it was translated and the manuscripts that the translations used. I don’t claim to be a theologian, because I certainly am not one. I don’t look into becoming one, but to continue to enrich my faith not only by scripture, but Church documents such as encyclicals by various pope from St. Peter to Pope Benedict XVI. Pope Leo XIII, Pope St. Pius V, Pope Saint Pius X and Pope Pius XII are my main focus before moving on to the works of John Paul II, Paul VI and Benedict XVI. I too have come on a little harsh.

 

[lak611]

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”?

I really do not know, but I would suspect not. From the old Catholic Encyclopedia:

The Septuagint, or Alexandrine, Version, the first and foremost translation of the Hebrew Bible, was made in the third and second centuries B.C. An account of its origin, recensions, and its historical importance has been given above (see SEPTUAGINT VERSION). It is still the official text of the Greek Church.

Now we need an Eastern Catholic to tell us if there were any vernacular scripture readings in the Divine Liturgy prior to Vatican II.

I started a thread here in the Eastern Catholicism forum.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I think if an English translation of the Nova Vulgata was published that if would force alot of people to ask questions when alternate translation choices based on original language texts that varied from the Vulgate were made.

Does that mean that those choices could not indeed be more accurate and what the Holy Spirit inspired the original writers of the scripture to say?

Of course not and that is what we should all be seeking.

Many of those questions cannot be conclusively answered.

Some can and that is good and biblical scholarship in answering those questions is a good thing–in fact the Catholic Church MANDATES it.

Absent a declaration of the Catholic Church about those questions that cannot be conclusively answered–any Catholic is not obliged to believe in the translation choices made by ANY non Vulgate translation.

On matters of doctrine a Catholic is obliged to believe that the Vulgate does not err.

Which of course leaves a big gray area–What is the true Vulgate and what matters are of a doctrinal matter?

Since there are such areas-- translations that are not exactly the same as the Vulgate can most certainly be USED.

A true biblical scholar will consider many different textual varients.

Biblical students who can’t discern which varients are most accurate absent a declaration by the Catholic Church can fall back on one thing–the Vulgate does not err on doctrinal matters.

In other words–study many different translations of the Bible–favor certainly translations that the Catholic Church USES–but when in doubt on a matter that could be DOCTRINAL–falling back on the Vulgate is certainly permisable.

Not only that–but as a matter of belief in action–if one in those circumstances USES the Vulgate in “ANY DISPUTATIONS” they will be fully justified as the Council of Trent–led by the Holy Spirit taught!

 

[Ron_Conte]

No translation is perfect but I think that the Nova Vulgata is better than all others.

Why is it better?
Can you give an example of a verse that is worded better in the NV than in the CV?
No one has made a translation of the NV because it would be a poor choice for a source text. It paraphrases the Latin, the Greek, and the Hebrew, in various places. A translation (literal or otherwise) of a paraphrase translation would not be useful.

But you can be assured that I will comply with their directives, whether or not I agree with them.

There are thousands of documents from Councils, Synods, Popes, congregations of the Holy See, Bishops’ Conferences, plus Canon Law. Have you not read all these documents? I don’t think any one person has. You don’t even know if you are complying with everything said in every document, nor are you required to do so.

And now, the Nova Vulgata is the duly promulgated version, until a future Pope says otherwise.

But the Council of Trent said: “But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.”

The NV is not an edition of the old Latin Vulgate edition, but is, in many places a loose paraphrase of the Latin, or even a translation that prefers the Greek and Hebrew readings over the Latin.

 

[porthos11]

There are thousands of documents from Councils, Synods, Popes, congregations of the Holy See, Bishops’ Conferences, plus Canon Law. Have you not read all these documents? I don’t think any one person has. You don’t even know if you are complying with everything said in every document, nor are you required to do so.

But only a few dealing with the topic at hand, namely, Bible translations. And even fewer are those documents that deal with them that are in force for today, that is, have not been superseded.

But the Council of Trent said: “But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.”

This is Church dogma. It does NOT mean that it’s not possible to recognize glosses that have somehow made their way into the Vulgate and remove them or relegate them to footnotes.

“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.”

The NV is not an edition of the old Latin Vulgate edition, but is, in many places a loose paraphrase of the Latin, or even a translation that prefers the Greek and Hebrew readings over the Latin.

And this is a problem how? If the Greek and Hebrew have been shown by the best critical studies to be the more reliable renderings, and the Latin has no extant manuscript support, then according to the principles of Divino Afflante Spiritu, the original languages carry more weight and authority.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

IF those critical studies are the best and IF the renderings are more reliable.

Who do you trust to make those decisions?

I trust the people who came up with the Nova Vulgata more than those who came up with other versions of the Vulgate and for most of the editions of the Vulgate more than the “scholars” who made those decisions in other translations of the bible.

 

[Ron_Conte]

IF those critical studies are the best and IF the renderings are more reliable.

Who do you trust to make those decisions?

I trust the people who came up with the Nova Vulgata more than those who came up with other versions of the Vulgate and for most of the editions of the Vulgate more than the “scholars” who made those decisions in other translations of the bible.

The Council of Trent approved of the old Latin Vulgate. The neo-Vulgate does not retain the old text, but loosely rephrases it in many places, and also it consistently prefers the Greek and Hebrew over the Latin. The Clementine Vulgate is basically a modest revision of the Sixtine Vulgate, each of which was approved by the respective Popes, and each of which was specifically prepared to comply with the dictates of Trent. Pope Sixtus V personally worked on that edition.

The NV was prepared by the Beneditines of a particular monastery. It is not the work of the best scholars. It substantially departs from the Latin Scriptural tradition. It introduces some novel translations of the Greek or Hebrew into Latin, such as:
Mulier in **tranquillitate **discat cum omni subiectione;
which are not even justified by the Greek or Hebrew, but are only ‘justified’ as a ‘dynamic-equivalency’ translation of the Greek or Hebrew.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Ron Conte: Do you think it would be a good idea if the current pope or a future one would commission a group of their choosing to come up with the best and most accurate Vulgate possible and then give their approval to possible changes?

 

[peregrinus_sg]

Just wondering, is anyone making so much comments on the topic actually a biblical scholar or theologian? So that I can sieve out among the opinions, being not a biblical or Latin scholar myself.