Will the real Vulgate please stand up?

  • Thread starter Thread starter japhy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

japhy

Guest
Which Vulgate is the real Vulgate? I’m finding conflicting translations of Matthew 26:28.

The version at drbo.org reads: hic est enim sanguis meus novi testamenti qui pro multis effunditur in remissionem peccatorum.. Note that effunditur is the present passive tense.

The version at vulsearch.sourceforge.net reads: Hic est enim sanguis meus novi testamenti, qui pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Note that effundetur is the future passive tense!

What gives? The present passive tense is the tense found in the Greek… but it’s not found in the words of consecration of the liturgy. The Bible mentions the present tense four times at the Last Supper – “is being given for you” and “is being shed for you” – but the Roman Rite does not reflect this tense in the liturgy.
 
The drbo.org is the Stuttgart edition; the vulsearch is the Clementine (and so, in the Mass).

You can find several discussions of the difference in tense by doing a Google Book search of effundetur: here.
 
Keep in mind that the official Vulgate is NOW the Nova Biblia Vulgata.
 
The Nova Vulgata has it effunditur. The Mass did (EF) and still does (OF) use effundetur.

Not all (scriptural) words of the Mass conform to the Vulgate. For example, you won’t find “Gloria in excelsis Deo” in the Vulgate. It is an Old Latin verse.
 
I’m primarily curious about why the liturgy uses the future tense. It seems to de-emphasize the Eucharistic sacrifice. (There’s a thread about this in the Liturgy & Sacraments forum.)
 
Hesychios said:
No endorsement can make it more accurate.
Click to expand...
  1. And if the Tridentine Synod wished “that all should use as authentic” the Vulgate Latin version, this, as all know, applies only to the Latin Church and to the public use of the same Scriptures; nor does it, doubtless, in any way diminish the authority and value of the original texts. For there was no question then of these texts, but of the Latin versions, which were in circulation at that time, and of these the same Council rightly declared to be preferable that which “had been approved by its long-continued use for so many centuries in the Church.” Hence this special authority or as they say, authenticity of the Vulgate was not affirmed by the Council particularly for critical reasons, but rather because of its legitimate use in the Churches throughout so many centuries; by which use indeed the same is shown, in the sense in which the Church has understood and understands it,** to be free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals; so that, as the Church herself testifies and affirms, it may be quoted safely and without fear of error in disputations, in lectures and in preaching; and so its authenticity is not specified primarily as critical, but rather as juridical.**
    –Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu
Seems the accuracy is pretty solid to me. :rolleyes:
 
Unitas said:
  1. And if the Tridentine Synod wished “that all should use as authentic” the Vulgate Latin version, this, as all know, applies only to the Latin Church and to the public use of the same Scriptures; nor does it, doubtless, in any way diminish the authority and value of the original texts. For there was no question then of these texts, but of the Latin versions, which were in circulation at that time, and of these the same Council rightly declared to be preferable that which “had been approved by its long-continued use for so many centuries in the Church.” Hence this special authority or as they say, authenticity of the Vulgate was not affirmed by the Council particularly for critical reasons, but rather because of its legitimate use in the Churches throughout so many centuries; by which use indeed the same is shown, in the sense in which the Church has understood and understands it,** to be free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals; so that, as the Church herself testifies and affirms, it may be quoted safely and without fear of error in disputations, in lectures and in preaching; and so its authenticity is not specified primarily as critical, but rather as juridical.**
    –Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu
Seems the accuracy is pretty solid to me. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Then why the revision? 😃

Latin has not evolved. If the older translation is solid there should not have been another. 🤷
 
Unitas said:
the sense in which the Church has understood and understands it,** to be free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals; so that, as the Church herself testifies and affirms, it may be quoted safely and without fear of error in disputations, in lectures and in preaching; and so its authenticity is not specified primarily as critical, but rather as juridical.**
Click to expand...
It is accurate insofar as it is “free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals”. It does not have critical accuracy, but juridical accuracy. Hypothetically, if the underlying Greek text said “God is strong” and the Latin Vulgate text said “God is merciful”, the Vulgate has not erred in faith or morals, but it is not critically accurate.

That is not to say the Vulgate is entirely inaccurate in translation, just not primarily accurate in translation.
 
I’m primarily curious about why the liturgy uses the future tense. It seems to de-emphasize the Eucharistic sacrifice. (There’s a thread about this in the Liturgy & Sacraments forum.)

The Words of Institution in the various classical Eucharistic Liturgies have always been liturgical (that is, paraphrases), rather than scriptural (that is, exact quotes).
 
To return to Japhy’s original question, why does the Latin liturgy use the future tense? (Apparently not only the Latin uses it).

Peruse the Google book search in my post above, and most Catholic commentators understand that the consecration actually took place at the Last Supper, and that the futurity refers to the coming pouring out of the Lord’s Blood on Good Friday. (Very strangely, some understood it to mean that blood was shed at the Last Supper.) Certain present tense constructions in New Testament Greek (as in many other languages, like English) can be understood with the semantics of future tense.

There is multivalence here: actual sacramental consecration of the chalice, and future pouring out of the Lord’s Blood on the Cross.

See Japhy’s thread in the liturgy and sacraments forum here; apparently Pope Benedict XVI has catechized along these lines.
 
The_Prodigal said:
Certain present tense constructions in New Testament Greek (as in many other languages, like English) can be understood with the semantics of future tense.
Click to expand...
Just to provide a concrete example for those wondering how this might work, consider the sentence:

I am going to New York.

That could be said in the act, while walking out the door, or it could be said two weeks before the planned trip.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top