Hey everyone. I heard that there is going to be a new translation of the Latin Vulgate into English. Is this true? :shrug:
I’m only aware of Baronius Press reprinting the Knox version of the Bible sometime this year, but I have no idea if it is a translation from the Latin text. You can’t go wrong with a Douay-Rheims Bible…THE Latin to English translation used by the Church
Yeah I agree with you that one can’t go wrong with the Douay-Rheims Bible!
Actually, there is an “updated” Latin version of the Latin Vulgate, but it has not (to my knowledge) been translated into English (at least one that is approved).
In 1979, the Vatican published a new latin vulgate that had been in the works since Paul VI. In the Apostolic Constitution Scripturarum Thesaurus, John Paul II declared that the Catholic Church’s new, official latin bible would be the Nova Vulgata (distinguishing it from St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate). This Nova Vulgata is the translation used in the latest editions of the Roman Lectionary, Liturgy of the Hours, and Roman Ritual.
A second edition of the Nova Vulgata was released in 1986.
Finally, in 2001, the Vatican promulgated Liturgiam Authenticam, stating that the Nova Vulgata was to be used as a reference point 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”.
Ironically, 6 years later, in issuing Summorum Pontificum, Benedict XVI gave wide-permission for PRIESTS (not just bishops) to say the Latin Mass that was in force during the reign of John XXIII in 1962.
As far as publishing, I believe the Navarre Bible series (and only certain versions of their series) is the only bible that is reproducing the Nova Vulgata in its entirety.
And even more interesting (at least for me - and I was surprised at the number of priests who told me I was incorrect until I showed them the relevant documents) is the fact that the Novus Ordo did NOT abrogate the Mass being said in Latin. The Novus Ordo, when published, DID abrogate the Mass being said in the 1962 Latin format, AND the Church permitted priests to say Mass in the vernacular of the area in which the mass was said. But saying even the Novus Ordo in Latin was NEVER prohibited. I have just never seen it done.
As I simply do not have the time to research the issue, do any of you know what was used as the basis for producing the Nova Vulgata text? I ask because the readings are definitely NAB translation, and I cannot, for the life of me, understand why the Church allows the NAB for scripture readings, when it the Angel in Luke greeting Mary: “Hail, favored one!” The Rheims NT, the RSV, and the Christian Community Bible all say “full of grace”, but the NAB, NRSV, Jerusalem, New Jerusalem say “favored one”, and the Good News Translation says “Peace be with you! The Lord is with you and has greatly blessed you.”
People who engaged in Catholic apologetics already have a difficult job in arguing that “full of grace” means absence of sin, but then the Church approves for reading at Holy Mass a version that does not even mention grace!!!
To be honest I haven’t heard of it. Do you have any links or anything? It would be so so cool to have a nice critical translation of the Vulgate. However there is a good modern translation done by somebody else. Even though it doesn’t have any official Church statements, it’s very well done. It’s called the “Catholic Public Domain Version”. You can see it or buy a copy of the English translation here:
Just speculating but sometimes I get the feeling that they consulted with the Greek.
For example, the ‘traditional way’ (DRB, KJV) of reading John 1:18 is
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
But the NAB, NASB, ESV etc read something like:
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten God, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
where do they get that from?? the Clementine Vulg. (which supports DRB) reads:
Deum nemo vidit umquam : unigenitus Filius, qui est in sinu Patris,ipse enarravit. (only begotten Son)
-whereas the Nova Vulgata (supports NAB) reads-
Deum nemo vidit umquam; unigenitus Deus, qui est in sinum Patris, ipse enarravit. (only-begotten God)
Only thing I can think of is that the Nova Vulg. consulted with Greek thats used in UBS4/NA27 which reads
θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε• μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο. (only begotten God)
-whereas the Byzantine text type reads:
θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε• μονογενους υιου ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο. (only begotten Son)
I can’t find any Latin except Nova Vulg. that reads ‘only-begotten God’. Leading me to conclusion they could have consulted the Greek. If this occurred, then I wonder in how many verses it happens…don’t know?? :shrug:
I will try my question here . . . I asked it another thread and the next day, the thread was closed and my post was gone I am hoping I was not the cause, as I meant no ill will. Good grief, I am an orthodox Catholic - I love Holy Mother Church. But that doesn’t mean I can’t get frustrated with her sometimes . . .
This issue of an “official” bible and “official latin texts” really grates on my nerves.
One would THINK that the Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination on the face of the Earth, could do one simple thing:
Employ/Pay some top-notch biblical scholars, set them up something like Ptolemy did with the 72 Jews who produced the Septuagint (but give these guys better accommodations ), and “command” them to consult the BEST known manuscripts available. I am not talking about Challoner’s version of the Duoay-Rheims version of St. Jerome’s version of the original “old latin/old hebrew/old greek” version. I am talking about consulting the various codexes, looking to the Dead Sea Scrolls, look at whatever else may be out there, and simply put together ONE “master” bible - put it in Latin, obviously - BUT SET UP VERNACULAR “COMMISSIONS/BOARDS” TO OVERSEE TRANSLATION OF THE LATIN INTO THE DIFFERENT LANGUAGES/DIALECTS TO ENSURE ACCURACY - and then, that’s it.
There - we would have THE bible. We have the BEST bible out there, bar none. If there are some legitimate discrepancies, don’t just pass them over - point them out in the margins like Challoner, Haydock, and Knox did, except this would be the Vatican speaking.
Is this really asking too much of Holy Mother Church? Good grief! We have the Holy Father consulting the RSV in his biography of Jesus of Nazereth, yet, in the US, we have the bishops that approved the NAB, which cannot even properly cite Gabriel as greeting the Blessed Mother with “Hail, full of grace!”
If the NAB was the only translation, I dare say we would have a different rendering of the Hail Mary . . .
The Church will probably not do this any time in the near future…as she moves so slowly, with the exception of Vatican II I love the Douay-Rheims simply for the Catholic greeting of Hail Mary, but I’ve often been told by other protestants that it is not a correct translation as even the NAB says “hail favored one” …how bland don’t you think? I guess this is the “accurate” translation? I have a NAB, but I simply don’t like the commentary…much of it is not insightful and traditional Catholic commentary like 1 Cor. 3:10-15 which has been used to prove allusions to purgatory, says it shouldn’t be interpreted this way in the NAB…this is suppose to be a Catholic bible, but won’t even back Catholic teaching with traditional interpretation and commentary…that ultimately led to me trash the NAB. I now only use the Douay-Rheims and the RSV-Catholic edition from Ignatius Press as the Catechism quotes from the RSV Bible. If it’s good enough for the pope, it’s good enough for me
They state in the forward for the version that they used the Greek UBS text for the New Testament.
The Nova Vulgata New Testament takes the (Protestant) German Bible Society’s ‘Stuttgart’ Vulgate (Latin), ignoring the Clementine Vulgate entirely, and adjusts the Stuttgart to agree with the (Protestant) United Bible Societies’ critical Greek text, ignoring all other Greek sources entirely.
All Latin sources and most Greek sources (Majority Text, Textus Receptus) have ‘only begotten Son’ in John 1:18. The UBS text is critical, i.e. it does not choose its readings of the text based on the prevelance of a reading in ancient manuscripts, but on other criteria (not specifically stated in each case).
In my opinion, the NV would not be a suitable source text for a new translation. It does not represent the Latin scriptural tradition of the Church, and yet it is in Latin. The NV is a Latin translation of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek sources. But if a translation from those languages is desired, one would use the original language source texts, not a Latin intermediary. Also, the emphasis if the New Testament NV on the Protestant UBS text makes it unsuitable as the source text for a Catholic translation.
thanks…now I know :o
Why did they do that, instead of going with the Clementine Vulgate and the other Greek sources (Majority Tex, Textus, Receptus, etc. ) ?
Are you saying it won’t translate well from latin into other languages or is not even a good Latin version of the bible?
Isn’t the Nova Vulgata the OFFICIAL Latin Bible of the Church?
I am not saying that Latin does not translate well into other language. My point is that the Nova Vulgata (NV) represents Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek source texts, not the Latin scriptural tradition. So the NV would not be a good source text for a translation since the result would be a translation of a translation. The Clementine Vulgate (CV) by comparison does represent the Latin scriptural tradition in the Church. The CV’s long useage by the living Tradition makes it suitable as a source text.
The NV would also not be a good choice for the source text of a translation because the New Testament is based on a very narrow choice of texts: the Protestant UBS Greek text and the Protestant Stuttgart Latin text.
To my knowledge, no one has attempted a translation using the NV as the sole or main source text.
The NV is subject to legitimate scholarly criticism. The decision to make it the official Latin Bible of the Church was a fallible decision of the temporal authority of the Church, not an infallible teaching of the Magisterium.
I find the Pope Sixtus V and Pope Clement VIII Latin Vulgate (the CV) to be far superior to the Nova Vulgata.
Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments
Responsum ad Dubium
“While constantly defending the inerrancy of the Sacred Scriptures as such, the Church has never claimed unalterable perfection for her own officially approved Latin edition of the Scriptures, and has sought to improve that version several times. It is not to be excluded, and indeed, it is to be expected, that such work continue in the future. To this end, biblical scholars have all due freedom to propose corrections or improvements in that text wherever they believe them to be necessary or desirable, keeping in mind, of course, that their criteria for the “best” text or even the most “original” text may not in every instance coincide with the Church’s criteria for the canonical text. In responsibly proposing eventual revisions to the official edition of the Nova Vulgata or, with certain qualifications, the Ordo lectionum Missae, biblical scholars could at least be said to be working within their area of competence.”