Which is better the Vulgate or the Nova Vulgate?

[Ron_Conte]

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?

Yes, that would be a good idea. I think that the Pope should set aside the NV and reinstate the CV, then begin work on a light edit of the CV.

I don’t think that it is possible to have one definitive version of the Bible that takes into account all the variants in the text in every language. But it would be good to have a typical version in Latin, and also in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek (depending on the books).

I also think that the Vatican should have its own version of the Bible in English, as a point of reference for other English translations, a Spanish typical edition, French, Italian, etc. This would make it more difficult for Bible translators to go astray, and if they did, it would be easier for the faithful to notice by comparison with the typical edition in the same language.

As I’ve said in another thread, I think that the Bible is continuing to evolve, to improve, so that the Church must continually work on the Bible, never satisfied that any one version is complete and definitive.

 

[Ron_Conte]

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.

I’m currently working on a translation of the entire Bible from Latin into English, from the Clementine Vulgate. I have consulted the NV numerous times to see what those editors thought of certain obscure points.

It should be about 90% done by the end of this month (August).
sacredbible.org/

I have written some theology books and articles, including articles on the topic of Sacred Scripture.

 

[Manfred]

I think that the Pope should set aside the NV and reinstate the CV, then begin work on a light edit of the CV.

Ron, you and i know this will never happen in our lifetimes.

…it would be good to have a typical version in Latin, and also in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek (depending on the books).

I also think that the Vatican should have its own version of the Bible in English, as a point of reference for other English translations, a Spanish typical edition, French, Italian, etc. This would make it more difficult for Bible translators to go astray, and if they did, it would be easier for the faithful to notice by comparison with the typical edition in the same language.

Now there’s an idea I can wholeheartedly support!

The idea that an individual, a publishing house, or even a Church body can translate the Bible, get a local ordinary to grant it an Imprimatur, and publish it for public consumption WITHOUT its being passed through a “central clearing house”, i.e., the Vatican, is without merit.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Ron you proposed some great ideas. I do to wish that Clementine was in use over the the NV

 

[Ron_Conte]

I think it will happen in our lifetimes that the Pope sets aside the NV for the CV.

Most Latin scholars ignore the NV. It is not scholarly. In many places, it uses the Hebrew or Greek over the Latin. I some places it is just a loose paraphrasing of whatever the source text. And there are some novel revisions in the ‘light’ of modernism, such as women being tranquil, rather than silent, in the churches.

Baronius Press is working on a Latin-English Bible with a recent light edit of the CV and the Challoner Douai texts.

No one is interested in the NV, since it is a departure from the Latin tradition.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That is a very interesting question and one which has no answer. To understand my answer you will have to go to the instructions of the Council of Trent on bringing out a new Latin Text for the Bible and the Instructions for the Novo Vulgata. Essentially the Instructions for each simply state that the respective editions are free from errors in faith and morals but cannot be guaranteed to be free of other errors. Each is still the Inspired Word of God in faith and morals but not necessarially in every word or phrase, grammar, spelling, typos, etc. I think I found a Latin grammatical error in Psalm 15 of the Novo Vulgata where the phrase “…conserva me, Deus, quoniam speravi in te…” occurs. " Deus " is clearly a grammatical error. The vocative case is called for in the Latin but " Deus " has no vocative in the singular. The original " Domine " should have been retained because it is in the vocative case. On the other hand I prefer the entire phrase as it occurs in the Novo Vulgata over the clumsy Latin rendering in the Clemintine Latin.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It has been pointed out to me that in Church Latin " Deus " is also used for the Vocative case. Good enough.

No matter which Latin Bible you prefer you will soon learn that the Latins loved their Participles and the Biblical Latin bears this out. See 1:3,29-33 in the Nova Vulgata. I found the following: egredientes, accedens, apprehens, habentes ( twice), congregata, and maybe febricitans. So if you want to get the most out of your Latin reading you should review your Participles.

And there is no doubt that Latin has its numerous oddities. I found this in 1 Samuel 3,6 “,Et abiit et dormivit…” and in verse 12 “…Haec faciat tibi Deus et haec addat…” and in verse 21 “…Et addidit Dominus ut appareret in Silo…” And then there is “…Ecce ego…” in verses 4,5,6,9,11,etc…

All in good fun. Happy latining.

 

[ProVobis]

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?

That sounds about right. The Latin Vulgate is actually a rewrite of an older Vetus Latina, which was of very poor quality (bad handwriting, some pieces missing, etc.). St. Jerome used all the Hebrew and Greek documents he could find in order to assemble what we now refer to as the original Latin Vulgate. Monks handcopied the Bibles and out of those process came many inconsistencies which were resolved in the Clementine version.

I personally would like to have a side by side of the Clementine vs Nova Vulgate.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

For those who want to read the Scriptures in Latin you should check out veritasbible.com which is shown under this Forum’s Administrator where bbible code is discussed. I didn’t understand all the technical talk about " plug-ins " but if you go to the site you will find online side by side the Douay-Rheims translation, the Clementine Latin, and the Haydock commentary. You can view these and put your Novo Vulgata on your desk and compare as you go. You can go whereever you want in the Scriptures or you can, ( for example ) just compare the daily readings for short daily doses. That is what I am trying to do. At the same time I try to work out all the grammar and vocabulary as I go. And if you have the Wheelock Latin ( now in its seventh edition) that will be a great help.And then there is supplementary help there on-line as well. See Wheelockslatin.com/ and possibly other places as well. The grammar and vocabulary will come slowly at first. It is sure a great way to spend the time you would otherwise spend in front of the boob tube or in fruitless blogging. I have been doing this for several weeks now and find it engrossing and a great aid in learning Latin or at least learning enough to make reading the Latin easier. I think I do like the Nova Vulgata better but that may be just a matter of " degustibus non disputandum est. " One of the things I have found most interesting and challenging is what I call " Latinisms, " those quaint little phrases which y mean so much but don’t translate into English very well. As pointed out above. Just look at the word " Vespere " used in Mark 1: 29-39. What is that!!! I mean is it an adverbial or that odd ablative with an " e " ending rather than the usual " i ? " How fun it is!!!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This is working out pretty well but I think I will only be able to do the readings for two days a week because I’m having to do a lot of work on the grammar and vocabulary.

Doing the readings has shown me a couple of things. There is a big difference in style between the writers of the Old and New Testiment. The Old Testiment writers seemed to be more polished and of course there is much more of it. Two things I think account for this. First the Old Testiment deals with thousands of years and I think the Old Testiment writers had much more time to compose their writings. The New Testiment writers didn’t have a lot of time what with all their missionary work and the constant harrassment from their assorted enemies.

I have also noticed a lot more use of the Gerund in the Old Testiment. And of course, they make just as much of the various Participles and Infinitives as the writers of the New Testiment.

I do think the Nova Vulgata is more polished than the Clemtine.

 

[ProVobis]

Doing the readings has shown me a couple of things. There is a big difference in style between the writers of the Old and New Testiment. The Old Testiment writers seemed to be more polished and of course there is much more of it. Two things I think account for this. First the Old Testiment deals with thousands of years and I think the Old Testiment writers had much more time to compose their writings. The New Testiment writers didn’t have a lot of time what with all their missionary work and the constant harrassment from their assorted enemies.

I have a different theory. Much of the writing has been translated and retranslated many times over. I know I have 20 regular people write me emails all the time and I can usually tell who writes me without my seeing their name. Point is we all have different writing styles, different vocabularies, fog indices, etc. Even misspellings. And in those days probably a lot of bad handwriting too. Remember too the Greeks were into epics and unfortunately so were some of the Romans. (Thus you have the Homer vs Vergil linguistic battles.) Experts claim most of the New Testament is in one style of writing but if you think about it an authentic set of books should show many different writing styles. Plain and simple, we just don’t have the originals, dictations or actual writing.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I have a different theory. Much of the writing has been translated and retranslated many times over. I know I have 20 regular people write me emails all the time and I can usually tell who writes me without my seeing their name. Point is we all have different writing styles, different vocabularies, fog indices, etc. Even misspellings. And in those days probably a lot of bad handwriting too. Remember too the Greeks were into epics and unfortunately so were some of the Romans. (Thus you have the Homer vs Vergil linguistic battles.) Experts claim most of the New Testament is in one style of writing but if you think about it an authentic set of books should show many different writing styles. Plain and simple, we just don’t have the originals, dictations or actual writing.

What you say is very true. It must also have been very hard or even impossible to use a style and even a vocabulary which would translate into the various languages ( in centuries past as well as today in the periodic updates) in a manner pleasing to the ear or literary taste of the various tongues.

One has to wonder for example ( and there are at least a couple in most Chapters of every book) why such Latin words as " rugitus " would have been selected to describe the cry of Our Lord ( and David ) to the Father in the Passion prayer of Our Lord in Psalm 22 ( Nova Vulgata) in the second stanza. I’m sure Our Lord wasn’t " roaring " or “bellowing.” Surely this was a cry of the heart and mind not made vocally, even for David. Or again the phrase " …torquentes labia …" to describe the verbal taunting of Christ’s enemies in stanza eight. Perhaps though this is a " hebrewism or a similar colloquial expression from one of the other original languages.

One also finds in the various Latin versions a stanza expressed so differently in each that the meaning or translation into the vernacular is quite different. For example in stanzas 2 and 3 of the same Psalm we find in the Clementine " Deus Deus meus respice in me: quare me dereliquisti? longe a salute mea verba delictorum meorum." Whereas the N.V. has “… Deus , Deus meus, quare me derelinquisti? Longe a salute mea verba rugitus mei, Deus meus, clamo per diem, et non exaudis, et nocte, et non est requies mihi…” This is quite a difference in the Latin, and also in the vernacular rendering. However both meanings are quite possibly accurate or at least possible. Haydock’s commentary on this passage is very reasonable. On the other hand the vernacular translation of the N.V. is quite reasonable if you translate " rugitus " as " cry ." In fact my copy of the Psalms from the Confraternity of the Precious Blood translates the phrase in the second way as " …the cry of my words ( I would use " prayer " )…"

What do these facts teach me. First, use the Haydock commentary since he gives an excellent explanation of the text quite often. Secondly, reading the Latin is really an intellectual exercise for most of us and if we want to study Latin we may as well use the Latin Scriptures from whichever approved version we have access to. On the other hand, if we are reading for spiritual edification or prayer we should use an approved translation of the vernacular and there I suppose the Latin admonition " …degustibus non disputandum est…" applies. I use the Holy Text in both ways. I am interested in the Latin and I also like a good vernacular rendering. And for the latter, I would never trust myself to rely upon my own translations from the Latin.

 

[ProVobis]

What you say is very true. It must also have been very hard or even impossible to use a style and even a vocabulary which would translate into the various languages ( in centuries past as well as today in the periodic updates) in a manner pleasing to the ear or literary taste of the various tongues.

One has to wonder for example ( and there are at least a couple in most Chapters of every book) why such Latin words as " rugitus " would have been selected to describe the cry of Our Lord ( and David ) to the Father in the Passion prayer of Our Lord in Psalm 22 ( Nova Vulgata) in the second stanza. I’m sure Our Lord wasn’t " roaring " or “bellowing.” Surely this was a cry of the heart and mind not made vocally, even for David. Or again the phrase " …torquentes labia …" to describe the verbal taunting of Christ’s enemies in stanza eight. Perhaps though this is a " hebrewism or a similar colloquial expression from one of the other original languages.

One also finds in the various Latin versions a stanza expressed so differently in each that the meaning or translation into the vernacular is quite different. For example in stanzas 2 and 3 of the same Psalm we find in the Clementine " Deus Deus meus respice in me: quare me dereliquisti? longe a salute mea verba delictorum meorum." Whereas the N.V. has “… Deus , Deus meus, quare me derelinquisti? Longe a salute mea verba rugitus mei, Deus meus, clamo per diem, et non exaudis, et nocte, et non est requies mihi…” This is quite a difference in the Latin, and also in the vernacular rendering. However both meanings are quite possibly accurate or at least possible. Haydock’s commentary on this passage is very reasonable. On the other hand the vernacular translation of the N.V. is quite reasonable if you translate " rugitus " as " cry ." In fact my copy of the Psalms from the Confraternity of the Precious Blood translates the phrase in the second way as " …the cry of my words ( I would use " prayer " )…"

What do these facts teach me. First, use the Haydock commentary since he gives an excellent explanation of the text quite often. Secondly, reading the Latin is really an intellectual exercise for most of us and if we want to study Latin we may as well use the Latin Scriptures from whichever approved version we have access to. On the other hand, if we are reading for spiritual edification or prayer we should use an approved translation of the vernacular and there I suppose the Latin admonition " …degustibus non disputandum est…" applies. I use the Holy Text in both ways. I am interested in the Latin and I also like a good vernacular rendering. And for the latter, I would never trust myself to rely upon my own translations from the Latin.

De gustibus applies to other vernaculars as well. We tend to forget Polish and Spanish have their own translations and hopefully the Nova Vulgate will translate equally into those languages as well. Philosophically (and perhaps mathematically) however, they will never be the same as the Latin. The whole reason for different languages, even Hebrew, Greek, and Latin which all were supposed to work together, is because of philosophical, social, political, religious, and cultural differences. The more languages one learns, the better he can more deeply understand the metaphysical.

Incidentally I love that Latin phrase. In the 80’s a female coworker would email it to me a lot in closing her missives. It sounded good at the time and is wonderful Latin philosophy.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I just wanted to suggest to those who may be serious Latin students ( either at school or on your own) that you take a look at a couple of old grammars which you can read on the web at thanks to Google Books. The first is Adam’s Grammar by Charles Dexter Cleveland, Phil, 1836. This is the most complete and clearly explained Latin grammar I’ve ever seen. He has 20 pages just on the 3rd Declension nouns. The second, is A Latin Grammar by William Gardner Hale, and Carl Darling Buck, 1736. Fascinating and thorough. In case you are thinking " well those are pretty old, they couldn’t be very good, " just remember that the early years of our Nation’s history contained perhaps its greatest writers, was replete with the most learned men, much more so than today. Yes and there were those who were simply great scholars like the men above. Check them out, out of curiosity if nothing else.

And I would like to clear up one thing. I think the Traditional Mass is great but I seldom attend. I actually prefer the Mass in the vernacular and I would prefer it, warts and all. Please don’t think that someone is snobbish because they prefer one form over another. As many Saints have come from one form as the other. At least, both forms have produced many Saints. And by the way, Those other Catholic Rites have produced their fair share of Saints as well.

 

[ProVobis]

Please don’t think that someone is snobbish because they prefer one form over another. As many Saints have come from one form as the other. At least, both forms have produced many Saints. And by the way, Those other Catholic Rites have produced their fair share of Saints as well.

I don’t know what sainthood or form has to do with it. Everyone wants things in the vernacular; no need to defend yourself on that score. But it’s a matter of personal philosophy of whether he thinks God is better served with everyday words or worshipped in a language of the cross. Christ worshipped in a non-vernacular language. As do most major non-Christian religions. For myself I think I can go an hour a week without English. I realize many Anglophones can’t or won’t.