Why are some verses not included in the modern translations bible?

[EphelDuath]

Is there any gospel or epistle that was preserved(i mean the original text, written by the original author)?

No. The very oldest thing we have in our possession is a fragment of the Epistles called Papyrus 46 that might be as old as about AD 175.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

The original texts were inspired, which don’t exist anymore. We take it on the authority and pastorship of the Church that the New Vulgate is worthy of being called the official Bible of the Church. “Lex orandi, lex credendi” – in other words, since the Church says that the Vulgate is spiritually and morally flawless, and also an accurate transmission of the original texts, we must trust Her that this is the case.

This is SOO confusing to me.

So when bMonk states that “the Church has identified the correct text” he’s referring to the original text and NOT the Vulgate in one of its forms? (I don’t think that’s what he’s asserting, but I could be wrong. Perhaps bMonk will clarify.)

And if this Vulgate is in some sense the “official text”–nuances as to which Vulgate aside for a second–then why do Catholic translations published since the mid 20th century follow the MT as opposed to the Septuagint (much closer to the Vulgate) or follow the Vulgate itself? (Pick a Vulgate, any Vulgate)? There are some pretty substantial differences, after all. Which is the Catholic Church’s “correct text”? And why would the Catholic Church not disseminate translations of the “correct text”? This makes absolutely no sense to me.

And after discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (which are, as a whole, much more “MT-ish,” and I think everyone would conclude help give us a much clearer picture of the original) I don’t understand why Catholics would conclude that the Vulgate is “an accurate transmission of the original texts”? And why would someone simply “trust this is the case” when the evidence is fairly damning that it’s not? I have always assumed this is the reason that the Vulgate was abandoned as a source for translation after discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, but I don’t have any idea.

I’ve posed this question and ones like it on numerous fora and no one can seem to address them. I honestly and sincerely would like to know what the Catholic logic is behind the status of the Vulgate (and which Vulgate) and whether the Catholic Church believes there is such a thing as an existing inspired manuscript that one can physically access today. And if there is such a thing, why the Catholic Church would avoid pointing to it plainly and simply, and furthermore, disseminating translations of it?

 

[ProVobis]

One can always look at the actual differences between the Clementine Bible and the Nova Vulgata.

bibleworks.oldinthenew.org/?p=114

Of note:

The Nova Vulgata (Bibliorum Sacrorum nova vulgata editio, ISBN 88-209-2163-4), also called the Neo-Vulgate, is currently the typical Latin edition published by the Holy See for use in the Roman rite. The Second Vatican Council in Sacrosanctum Concilium mandated a revision of the Latin Psalter in accord with modern textual and linguistic studies, while preserving or refining its Christian Latin style. In 1965 Pope Paul VI appointed a commission to revise the rest of the Vulgate following the same principles.[50] The Commission published its work in eight annotated sections, inviting criticism from Catholic scholars as the sections were published. The Latin Psalter was published in 1969; the New Testament was completed by 1971 and the entire Nova Vulgata was published as a single volume edition for the first time in 1979.[44]

The foundational text of most of the Nova Vulgata’s Old Testament is the critical edition done by the monks of the Benedictine Abbey of St. Jerome under Pope St. Pius X.[44] The foundational text of the books of Tobit and Judith are from manuscripts of the Vetus Latina rather than the Vulgate. The New Testament was based on the 1969 edition of the Stuttgart Vulgate. All of these base texts were revised to accord with the modern critical editions in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.[51] There are also a number of changes where the modern scholars felt that Jerome had failed to grasp the meaning of the original languages, or had rendered it obscurely.[52]

The Nova Vulgata does not contain some books found in the earlier editions but omitted by the Canon promulgated by the Council of Trent, namely the Prayer of Manasses, the 3rd & 4th Book of Esdras (sometimes known by different names: see naming conventions of Esdras) and the Epistle to the Laodiceans.

In 1979, after decades of preparation, the Nova Vulgata was published and promulgated as the Catholic Church’s current official Latin version in the Apostolic constitution Scripturarum Thesaurus[53] promulgated by the Pope John Paul II. The Nova Vulgata is the translation used in the latest editions of the Roman Lectionary, Liturgy of the Hours, and Roman Ritual.

A second edition was published in 1986; this second edition added a Preface to the reader,[54] an Introduction[55] to the principles used in producing the Nova Vulgata as well as an appendix[56] containing 3 historical documents from the Council of Trent and the Clementine Vulgate. In addition, the second edition included the footnotes to the Latin text found in the 8 annotated sections published before 1979; it also replaced the few occurrences of the form Iahveh, when translating the Tetragrammaton, with Dominus, in keeping with an ancient tradition.

The Nova Vulgata has not been widely embraced by conservative Catholics, many of whom see it as being in some verses of the Old Testament a new translation rather than a revision of Jerome’s work. Also, some of its readings sound unfamiliar to those who are accustomed to the Clementine.

In 2001, the Vatican released the instruction Liturgiam Authenticam, establishing the Nova Vulgata as a point of reference for all translations of the liturgy of the Roman rite into the vernacular from the original languages, “in order to maintain the tradition of interpretation that is proper to the Latin Liturgy”.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The Nova Vulgata in English would be a great bible and would EXPOSE the agendas of many modern translations–that’s the real reason we don’t see it–the liberal modernists and the Latin onlyists join forces to make sure it doesn’t happen.

They don’t mean to join forces–it just comes out that way–they are more like strange bedfellows.

I’m not saying that the Nova Vulgata in English would be perfect–I’m just saying it would be better than anything currently available.

IF there are modern translations that claim to be from original language texts–then they should be able to defend their textual varient choices against a hypothethetical English translation of a hypothetical Nova Vulgata English translation.

IF there were better translations into English from BETTER Latin sources than the Nova Vulgata they should have no problem being able to defend those varient choices against a hypothetical English translation of a hypothetical Nova vulgata English translation.

The REASON you’ll never see that happen is that in MOST all cases an English translation of the Nova Vulgata would be SUPERIOR.

To make sure that doesn’t happen you’ll hear all the same old arguments from the Latin only lovers who don’t think there is any value in English translation of the Bible and then you’ll hear the lame old retort from the liberal modernist biblical forces about how all tanslations should come from original language texts.

i have no problem with bible translations being from original language texts since that is what the church teaches–what I object to is the DODGE by liberral modernist biblical agendaists who use that as an excuse so that the Nova Vulgata never appears in English and exposes their agendas.

Doesn’t it seem odd and quite curious that the Vatican has translated ZILLIONS of documents into English from Latin but the most important document of all–the Bible–CAN’T be seen in English. What kind of sense does that make?

What we all want is the most ACCURATE text of the bible as possible. What I maintain is that as a base–an English translation of the Nova Vulgata should be the starting point as a frame of reference when translating original language texts.

In other words in my opinion DEVIATION from that base would be PERMISSABLE if original language texts truly supported such changes–in other words a biblical scholar should have to make a case WHY such deviations were CLEARLY superior.

The shame is that we’ll never see anything like that.

But what I’m really saying is this–if the Nova Vulgata is used as a tool in making vernacular translations–

Then why can’t we see an English translation of the Nova Vulgata IF that is the tool that is used in making modern English translations?

Would the universe END if we had an English translation of the Nova Vulgata?

I guess that question is kind of like–would the world END if the mass was celebrated in the EF in English?

The answer of course is NO to both questions–the shame is that more accurate English bible translations and the beauty of the EF can not be experienced by Catholics who do not know Latin but in ENGLISH their native tongue!

So see that is how the Latin onlyists and the liberal modernists–when it comes to bible translation–end up as strange bedfellows.

Both should be ignored and we should be able to have the Nova Vulgata Bible translated into English!

 

[EphelDuath]

This is SOO confusing to me.

So when bMonk states that “the Church has identified the correct text” he’s referring to the original text and NOT the Vulgate in one of its forms? (I don’t think that’s what he’s asserting, but I could be wrong. Perhaps bMonk will clarify.)

And if this Vulgate is in some sense the “official text”–nuances as to which Vulgate aside for a second–then why do Catholic translations published since the mid 20th century follow the MT as opposed to the Septuagint (much closer to the Vulgate) or follow the Vulgate itself? (Pick a Vulgate, any Vulgate)? There are some pretty substantial differences, after all. Which is the Catholic Church’s “correct text”? And why would the Catholic Church not disseminate translations of the “correct text”? This makes absolutely no sense to me.

And after discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (which are, as a whole, much more “MT-ish,” and I think everyone would conclude help give us a much clearer picture of the original) I don’t understand why Catholics would conclude that the Vulgate is “an accurate transmission of the original texts”? And why would someone simply “trust this is the case” when the evidence is fairly damning that it’s not? I have always assumed this is the reason that the Vulgate was abandoned as a source for translation after discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, but I don’t have any idea.

I’ve posed this question and ones like it on numerous fora and no one can seem to address them. I honestly and sincerely would like to know what the Catholic logic is behind the status of the Vulgate (and which Vulgate) and whether the Catholic Church believes there is such a thing as an existing inspired manuscript that one can physically access today. And if there is such a thing, why the Catholic Church would avoid pointing to it plainly and simply, and furthermore, disseminating translations of it?

You are quibbling about what “an accurate transmission of the original texts” means. I don’t particularly think it matters if David’s capture of Jerusalem was by going through the sewers (MT) or by arming his troops with an unusual kind of blade (LXX). “An accurate transmission of the original texts” means that we are reading what the Holy Spirit wants us to read, and on that count, I trust the Catholic Church.

Furthermore, I don’t see how the Dead Sea Scrolls are “fairly damning evidence” that the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate was an “inauthentic Bible”. The authors of the New Testament quoted from the Septuagint, so in my opinion, the LXX should be the source text for all OT translations, not the MT. Still, the Hebrew allows us to see the reasoning behind a lot of renderings into the Koine Greek, so it’s not a worthless resource. As per the above paragraph, I don’t think it’s a huge difference to translate from the Hebrew while checking the Greek, or translating from the Greek while referencing the Hebrew; the final differences are fairly tiny, really.

So, ultimately, can any Bible at all that exists today be called “accurate to the originals”? From a scholarly perspective, no. Probably not. From a moral and spiritual perspective, yes. And that’s what counts, for that is what the Catholic Church’s infallibility pertains to.

 

[ProVobis]

The Nova Vulgata in English would be a great bible and would EXPOSE the agendas of many modern translations–that’s the real reason we don’t see it–the liberal modernists and the Latin onlyists join forces to make sure it doesn’t happen.

They don’t mean to join forces–it just comes out that way–they are more like strange bedfellows.

I’m not saying that the Nova Vulgata in English would be perfect–I’m just saying it would be better than anything currently available.

IF there are modern translations that claim to be from original language texts–then they should be able to defend their textual varient choices against a hypothethetical English translation of a hypothetical Nova Vulgata English translation.

IF there were better translations into English from BETTER Latin sources than the Nova Vulgata they should have no problem being able to defend those varient choices against a hypothetical English translation of a hypothetical Nova vulgata English translation.

The REASON you’ll never see that happen is that in MOST all cases an English translation of the Nova Vulgata would be SUPERIOR.

To make sure that doesn’t happen you’ll hear all the same old arguments from the Latin only lovers who don’t think there is any value in English translation of the Bible and then you’ll hear the lame old retort from the liberal modernist biblical forces about how all tanslations should come from original language texts.

i have no problem with bible translations being from original language texts since that is what the church teaches–what I object to is the DODGE by liberral modernist biblical agendaists who use that as an excuse so that the Nova Vulgata never appears in English and exposes their agendas.

Doesn’t it seem odd and quite curious that the Vatican has translated ZILLIONS of documents into English from Latin but the most important document of all–the Bible–CAN’T be seen in English. What kind of sense does that make?

What we all want is the most ACCURATE text of the bible as possible. What I maintain is that as a base–an English translation of the Nova Vulgata should be the starting point as a frame of reference when translating original language texts.

In other words in my opinion DEVIATION from that base would be PERMISSABLE if original language texts truly supported such changes–in other words a biblical scholar should have to make a case WHY such deviations were CLEARLY superior.

The shame is that we’ll never see anything like that.

But what I’m really saying is this–if the Nova Vulgata is used as a tool in making vernacular translations–

Then why can’t we see an English translation of the Nova Vulgata IF that is the tool that is used in making modern English translations?

Would the universe END if we had an English translation of the Nova Vulgata?

I guess that question is kind of like–would the world END if the mass was celebrated in the EF in English?

The answer of course is NO to both questions–the shame is that more accurate English bible translations and the beauty of the EF can not be experienced by Catholics who do not know Latin but in ENGLISH their native tongue!

So see that is how the Latin onlyists and the liberal modernists–when it comes to bible translation–end up as strange bedfellows.

Both should be ignored and we should be able to have the Nova Vulgata Bible translated into English!

You’re speaking in the abstract and it sounds like a self-serving argument to me. The Vatican has to worry about hundreds of vernaculars now. Why should everything be about what Anglophones want? I don’t think they comprise more than 10% of the Church, if that much.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Nova Vulgata

It is problematic that the Nova Vulgata is praised merely because it is the approved Latin text at the present time. An objective scholarly critique of the version, from the point of view of faith (not modernist scholarship), would reveal a number of problems with the text. Chief among these problems is that the NV ignores the Latin scriptural Tradition (at least in the NT) and instead follows the Protestant UBS critical texts. Essentially, the NV NT follows the Protestant UBS text in Greek and ignores the Clementine Latin and the Textus Receptus and Majority Text Greek.

Newly discovered manuscripts and the Dead Sea Scrolls

The value of a manuscript of Scripture depends on its usage in the Church, not solely on its age or its novelty as a new discovery. The DSS were only used by a small sect of Jews living in the desert, and following an altered version of the Jewish faith. The DSS manuscripts (OT) were never used in the Church.

The Council of Trent valued the Latin scriptural tradition because of its long-standing usage by the living Tradition and by the Magisterium. The Council said that the Latin Vulgate was without doctrinal error due to this usage, which essentially has vetted the text. An older manuscript that was never used by the Church is much less useful.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Nova Vulgata

It is problematic that the Nova Vulgata is praised merely because it is the approved Latin text at the present time. An objective scholarly critique of the version, from the point of view of faith (not modernist scholarship), would reveal a number of problems with the text. Chief among these problems is that the NV ignores the Latin scriptural Tradition (at least in the NT) and instead follows the Protestant UBS critical texts. Essentially, the NV NT follows the Protestant UBS text in Greek and ignores the Clementine Latin and the Textus Receptus and Majority Text Greek.

Newly discovered manuscripts and the Dead Sea Scrolls

The value of a manuscript of Scripture depends on its usage in the Church, not solely on its age or its novelty as a new discovery. The DSS were only used by a small sect of Jews living in the desert, and following an altered version of the Jewish faith. The DSS manuscripts (OT) were never used in the Church.

The Council of Trent valued the Latin scriptural tradition because of its long-standing usage by the living Tradition and by the Magisterium. The Council said that the Latin Vulgate was without doctrinal error due to this usage, which essentially has vetted the text. An older manuscript that was never used by the Church is much less useful.

So you would see the Catholic project as much less about getting back to the original text and more about preserving the reading traditions of the Church. Is that a fair summary?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

You are quibbling about what “an accurate transmission of the original texts” means. I don’t particularly think it matters if David’s capture of Jerusalem was by going through the sewers (MT) or by arming his troops with an unusual kind of blade (LXX). “An accurate transmission of the original texts” means that we are reading what the Holy Spirit wants us to read, and on that count, I trust the Catholic Church.

Furthermore, I don’t see how the Dead Sea Scrolls are “fairly damning evidence” that the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate was an “inauthentic Bible”. The authors of the New Testament quoted from the Septuagint, so in my opinion, the LXX should be the source text for all OT translations, not the MT. Still, the Hebrew allows us to see the reasoning behind a lot of renderings into the Koine Greek, so it’s not a worthless resource. As per the above paragraph, I don’t think it’s a huge difference to translate from the Hebrew while checking the Greek, or translating from the Greek while referencing the Hebrew; the final differences are fairly tiny, really.

So, ultimately, can any Bible at all that exists today be called “accurate to the originals”? From a scholarly perspective, no. Probably not. From a moral and spiritual perspective, yes. And that’s what counts, for that is what the Catholic Church’s infallibility pertains to.

Where did I call the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate an “inauthentic Bible”? That’s not at all fair.

All I said was that we now have something that can be of much greater assistance to get closer to the original, a criteria that you first presented in your post.

I guess it’s a matter of perspective then as to how significant the differences are between MT, LXX (of which there are also many, many varying manuscripts, so we’re back to the same problem) and the Vulgates. I would say they’re huge, but it sounds like you don’t think they are–which is fine and you’re entitled to your opinion. Again, I’m just trying to understand the Catholic perspective here.

So in congruence with Ron’s comment you would say that the Catholic Church is NOT trying (and shouldn’t try) to follow the scholarly project of attempting to get as close to the original text as possible, is that correct? And you think the Church should use the LXX as a source text for translation (and NOT one of the Vulgates) because the LXX is quoted–at least most of the time–in the NT? Wouldn’t this run counter to Divino Afflante Spiritu?

Do you then disagree with bMonk that the Catholic Church has identified the “correct text”?

Why does the Catholic Church disseminate translations of MT and NOT one of the Vulgates or (per your preference) the LXX?

Don’t take this wrong, but from an outsider’s perspective it sounds like you “trust the Church” in some respects on this particular issue but not on others. How do you know which decisions to take on trust and which to reject?

 

[EphelDuath]

Where did I call the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate an “inauthentic Bible”? That’s not at all fair.

All I said was that we now have something that can be of much greater assistance to get closer to the original, a criteria that you first presented in your post.

I guess it’s a matter of perspective then as to how significant the differences are between MT, LXX (of which there are also many, many varying manuscripts, so we’re back to the same problem) and the Vulgates. I would say they’re huge, but it sounds like you don’t think they are–which is fine and you’re entitled to your opinion. Again, I’m just trying to understand the Catholic perspective here.

So in congruence with Ron’s comment you would say that the Catholic Church is NOT trying (and shouldn’t try) to follow the scholarly project of attempting to get as close to the original text as possible, is that correct? And you think the Church should use the LXX as a source text for translation (and NOT one of the Vulgates) because the LXX is quoted–at least most of the time–in the NT? Wouldn’t this run counter to Divino Afflante Spiritu?

Do you then disagree with bMonk that the Catholic Church has identified the “correct text”?

Why does the Catholic Church disseminate translations of MT and NOT one of the Vulgates or (per your preference) the LXX?

Don’t take this wrong, but from an outsider’s perspective it sounds like you “trust the Church” in some respects on this particular issue but not on others. How do you know which decisions to take on trust and which to reject?

You are confusing several things.

The Vulgate is the official Bible of the Church. As such, it is spiritually and morally flawless; it is the Bible that the Holy Spirit has gifted us as the Advocate of the Church. Yet it can suffer from deficiencies in regard to textual corruptions (prior to the invention of the printing press and the Council of Trent), but also from a lack of scholarly freshness. As such the Church has a pastoral prerogative to change the editio typica of the Vulgate as is Her pleasure. So where you said, “you would say that the Catholic Church is NOT trying (and shouldn’t try) to follow the scholarly project of attempting to get as close to the original text as possible”, you are wrong.

Even prior to Divino Afflante Spiritu, the Church has desired that the Vulgate be created from the original manuscripts, while conferring with its previous editions (rather than the other way around). Most of the redaction work for the New Vulgate was actually done during the pontificate of Pope St. Pius X, at the Monastery of St. Benedict. You can go back all the way to the 4th century and see that Pope St. Siricius requested St. Jerome to make a Hebrew edition of the Psalter, though ultimately it was the Gallican edition which became the standard in the West. I know of no example in history, as Ron Conte believes was decreed at Trent, where the Church took a recent Latin manuscript as preference over an elder one.

It is only my personal, non-scholarly opinion that the LXX should take textual precedence over the MT and DSS. I completely understand the contrary position and I do not think it deeply erroneous, since ultimately the final differences are not profound enough for me to complain. The ancient apostles thought the Septuagint was good enough to quote it in their testimonies of Christ, so I certainly do not think that the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls is evidence that the Vulgate was way-off.

If my understanding of the issue is wrong, please cite an orthodox theologian, or a blatant quote from a Papal or Conciliar document, to demonstrate it.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

You are confusing several things.

The Vulgate is the official Bible of the Church. As such, it is spiritually and morally flawless; it is the Bible that the Holy Spirit has gifted us as the Advocate of the Church. Yet it can suffer from deficiencies in regard to textual corruptions (prior to the invention of the printing press and the Council of Trent), but also from a lack of scholarly freshness. As such the Church has a pastoral prerogative to change the editio typica of the Vulgate as is Her pleasure. So where you said, “you would say that the Catholic Church is NOT trying (and shouldn’t try) to follow the scholarly project of attempting to get as close to the original text as possible”, you are wrong.

Even prior to Divino Afflante Spiritu, the Church has desired that the Vulgate be created from the original manuscripts, while conferring with its previous editions (rather than the other way around). Most of the redaction work for the New Vulgate was actually done during the pontificate of Pope St. Pius X, at the Monastery of St. Benedict. You can go back all the way to the 4th century and see that Pope St. Siricius requested St. Jerome to make a Hebrew edition of the Psalter, though ultimately it was the Gallican edition which became the standard in the West. I know of no example in history, as Ron Conte believes was decreed at Trent, where the Church took a recent Latin manuscript as preference over an elder one.

It is only my personal, non-scholarly opinion that the LXX should take textual precedence over the MT and DSS. I completely understand the contrary position and I do not think it deeply erroneous, since ultimately the final differences are not profound enough for me to complain. The ancient apostles thought the Septuagint was good enough to quote it in their testimonies of Christ, so I certainly do not think that the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls is evidence that the Vulgate was way-off.

If my understanding of the issue is wrong, please cite an orthodox theologian, or a blatant quote from a Papal or Conciliar document, to demonstrate it.

When I was speaking about the project of getting back to the original manuscripts, I wasn’t referring to updating/emending the Vulgate–which of course the Catholic Church is free to do.

Do you then disagree with bMonk that the Catholic Church has identified the “correct text”?

Why does the Catholic Church disseminate translations of MT and NOT one of the Vulgates or (per your preference) the LXX?

Wouldn’t you say that the differences, say, between the LXX of Jeremiah and the MT of Jeremiah qualify as profound? Again, I think you’re entitled to your opinion but to me it seems a dangerous “anything goes” proposition.

 

[EphelDuath]

When I was speaking about the project of getting back to the original manuscripts, I wasn’t referring to updating/emending the Vulgate–which of course the Catholic Church is free to do.

Do you then disagree with bMonk that the Catholic Church has identified the “correct text”?

Why does the Catholic Church disseminate translations of MT and NOT one of the Vulgates or (per your preference) the LXX?

Wouldn’t you say that the differences, say, between the LXX of Jeremiah and the MT of Jeremiah qualify as profound? Again, I think you’re entitled to your opinion but to me it seems a dangerous “anything goes” proposition.

I think the Catholic Church has identified the correct text, yes.

Currently the scholarly preference is to translate from the Hebrew rather than the Greek because of a handful of reasons. Hebrew is the source language, so any renderings that the LXX have were based upon the Hebrew. It is also presumably what Christ himself worshiped in, during His earthly life. Furthermore in the case of psalms and canticles, it retains the poetic form which was not necessarily preserved in the Greek.

I think the two versions of Jeremiah are complementary rather than adversaries. The Greek contains the Book of Baruch, which is a canonical book of the Bible and was considered so by the apostles and Jews of their time; whereas the additional Hebrew parts shed a theological light upon the work as a whole. I’m not a scholar myself so I could not tell you which verses of Jeremiah between the two languages are “most authentic”; I, once again, trust the pastoral authority of the Church in having made a reliable translation in the Vulgate.

 

[Ron_Conte]

So you would see the Catholic project as much less about getting back to the original text and more about preserving the reading traditions of the Church. Is that a fair summary?

God did not give us the original manuscripts of any book of the Bible, nor even an exact copy, because he wishes us to focus on the truths of Scripture, rather than on the particular language and exact wording. So there should exist in the Church, at all times, many different versions of Scripture: some based on the Latin, some on the Greek/Hebrew, some more literal, others more dynamic, etc.

I believe that the Holy Spirit protects the transmission of both Tradition and Scripture, so that the truths of Divine Revelation are never lost or corrupted, despite a multiplicity of texts with different wording, in many different languages.

No, we don’t need to get back to the original texts, but we must always preserve the truths of Scripture, no matter what language or exact wording is used. Tradition and Magisterium have a role in helping to preserve the truths of Scripture, but it is not a matter of simply preserving the traditional readings of the Church.