po18guy
Well-known member
Saint Jerome’s Latin Vulgate was not the scriptures translated into a single language?No, that honor belongs to the Middle English translations attributed to John Wycliff, which is itself also based on the Vulgate.
- Status
P
ProVobis
Guest
I think one can call it a consolidation of Vetus Latina, a still older Latin version of the Bible, and lots of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic scriptural texts available at that time. But I’ll let Patrick speak on it.Saint Jerome’s Latin Vulgate was not the scriptures translated into a single language?
P
patrick457
Guest
Not exactly. We usually think of St. Jerome translating the whole Bible, but in reality it seems that he really only did translation and revision work on most of the OT (more specifically, the protocanonical books) and the Gospels (we aren’t completely sure if he managed to complete the NT, and if so, whether the translation that bears his name today is that same one). Certain books, such as Baruch, Sirach, Wisdom, Prayer of Manasses, Ecclesiasticus, 1-2 Maccabees, 3-4 Esdras, Epistle to the Laodiceans and perhaps the rest of the NT, seem to be either Vetus Latina translations revised by somebody else before inclusion or just included as they were.Saint Jerome’s Latin Vulgate was not the scriptures translated into a single language?
Baruch is a rather interesting case. Even after he apparently deferred to the Church regarding the canonicity of six of the seven disputed (by Protestants) deuterocanonicals, St. Jerome continued to have some personal reservations regarding Baruch “which is neither read nor found among the Hebrews”, though he realized full well that he would come under some attack for his opinion. Consequently, a Vulgate version of Baruch is not found before the 9th century, and is present only in a minority of manuscripts before the 13th century.
In Italy, the 71 books as listed by St. Jerome (counting Maccabees as a single book and excluding Baruch), although not in his order, formed the standard text of the Vulgate (note: the term versio vulgata was only applied to the translation - which originally never had a specific name - during the late Middle Ages by people like Friar Roger Bacon, when it had become the ‘commonly-used version’ in the West) as it became established in the 5th and 6th centuries. The case was slightly different in other areas like Spain. There the readings tended to vary much further from Jerome’s original, specifically in the retention of many Old Latin readings, in the expansion of the text of Proverbs, and in the insertion of the infamous Comma Johanneum. Some editions here also included an Old Latin translation of ‘missing’ book of Baruch as well as 3 and 4 Esdras (aka 1 and 2 Esdras). Spanish, Italian and Irish Vulgate traditions were all reflected in bibles created in northern France, which by the end of the 8th century featured a wide variety of highly variable texts.
Because of the huge variance among the textual traditions there was a movement during the Carolingian period to standardize the text. The English scholar Alcuin produced a version based on the Italian recensions, but with the major change of substituting Jerome’s Gallican Psalter (including Psalm 151) for his third version from the Hebrew. Alcuin’s contemporary Theodulf of Orleans produced a second independent reformed recension of the Vulgate, also based largely on Italian exemplars, but with variant readings, from Spanish texts and patristic citations, indicated in the margin. Theodulf kept Jerome’s Hebrew Psalter, and also incorporated Baruch (and with it, the Letter of Jeremiah) within the book of Jeremiah. However, otherwise Theodulf adopted Jerome’s proposed order of the Old Testament, with the five (six) deuterocanonical books at the end.
Theodulf’s text was widely influential, although initially only the abbey of Fleury followed his example in adding Baruch to the Vulgate. A revision was also undertaken in the early 9th century by scholars in the Abbey of Corbie, and bibles from this abbey are the first in France to include the books of 3 and 4 Esdras, though this practice remained rare.
Although a large number of bible manuscripts resulted from all this work, no standard Vulgate text was to be established for another three centuries. However, the explosive growth of medieval universities, especially the University of Paris during the 12th century created a demand for a new sort of Vulgate.
po18guy
Well-known member
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vetus_Latina
Seems to indicate that it was a collection of various works by unknown authors, with differing translational styles - essentially a collection of fragments. Thank you for posting this, as I now know more than before.
As to the thread title, I found a 1914 D-R on eBay for a price that I could not resist. It came today, and is the first D-R hard copy that I have. It is going to accompany me to adoration in a few minutes.
P
patrick457
Guest
To be more specific, Vetus Latina is an umbrella term for different, independent Latin translations of Scriptural books made before St. Jerome’s time.
po18guy
Well-known member
It is never as simple as we would like it to be, but so it also is with our faith. All of this points to the absolute necessity of a single, authoritative interpreting body.To be more specific, Vetus Latina is an umbrella term for different, independent Latin translations of Scriptural books made before St. Jerome’s time.
V
VeiledCatholic
Guest
Condolences to you. :sad_yes: My dad died in 2005. In 2006 my brother went to clean out his house to put it up for sale. In Dad’s room he had a “pocket sized” (which is anything but pocket sized…lol) gray DR Bible. My dad wasn’t Catholic…wasn’t even a Believer for that matter. That wee big Bible is now in my possession and I cherish it.Thanks for the prayers friend!
He was a good man, very wise.
I was just cross referencing the readings I had picked with the Douay ones. I found his old 1941 copy in the book case that night and was remembering him fondly.
Recently at a used bookstore I found a black hard cover DR Bible in excellent condition. I bought it. Now I can actually read without squinting like I was doing with the pocket sized one.
I prefer the DR for personal Bible readings.My husband prefers the NAB so we use that when doing devotions together.
We have the Jerusalem Bible and recently I came across another Catholic version called the TEV (Today’s English Version). I don’t think that’s used very often in the Catholic world though.
po18guy
Well-known member
Long have I heard about the D-R. I use this online version, as I prefer the search capabilities and other translations, but until yesterday, never owned a hard copy. When it arrived, I carefully cleaned the cover and treated it with Lexol. It is going to accompany me to cancer treatment. Amazing how carrying a bible can open the doors of communication with others.Condolences to you. :sad_yes: My dad died in 2005. In 2006 my brother went to clean out his house to put it up for sale. In Dad’s room he had a “pocket sized” (which is anything but pocket sized…lol) gray DR Bible. My dad wasn’t Catholic…wasn’t even a Believer for that matter. That wee big Bible is now in my possession and I cherish it.
Recently at a used bookstore I found a black hard cover DR Bible in excellent condition. I bought it. Now I can actually read without squinting like I was doing with the pocket sized one.
My husband prefers the NAB so we use that when doing devotions together.
We have the Jerusalem Bible and recently I came across another Catholic version called the TEV (Today’s English Version). I don’t think that’s used very often in the Catholic world though.
- Status