Are there differing versions of the LV? My children are supposed to be translating a passage of St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. I went to an online Latin/English translator and it could only translate a portion of the words. I went to a Douay-Rheims/Latin Vulgate side by side and the LV on the site has more than a few words that are different than what is in my child’s curriculum.
I am a little confused by your question, are you looking for a translation that is already done that matches the exact text that was given to your children by the teachers? If so, it is only for your edification, or do you plan on somehow assisting them with their homework assignment.
There have been several versions of vulgate bibles, St. Jerome’s was just one. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate
In my humble opinion, I would just let the children do the translation on their own or help them with using the same tools they are usings (latin dictionary, glossary, textboot) Getting it right with the use of outside resources seems to me to defeat the purpose of the homework assignment.
Jerome’s translation of the Vulgate is not extant. We do not have any copies of his translation. What we have are many manuscripts in Latin probably based in large part on his work, and which have gone through many generations of editing.
The Latin version of the Bible most commonly found online is a 1970’s edit done by a Protestant Bible society in Germany. It is not a Catholic Latin version of the Bible.
Some years ago, the Vatican published the Nova Vulgate, which is St. Jerome’s Vulgate, with corrections achieved after modern science established a more reliable text both of the Vulgate and the original Hebrew and Greek.
The corrections, however are few and far between. If the Latin text you have is very different, it may have been “adapted” for school use.
The Neo-Vulgate is not Jerome’s Vulgate. The Clementine Vulgate is probably closer to Jerome’s work than the NV, which relies much more on Greek and Hebrew.
The Douay-Rheims-Challoner is essentially a translation of the Clementine Vulgate.
Another poster to this thread, Mr Conte, I believe, gave links to the Clementine, the Nova Vulgata, and his own English translation of the Clementine (a work in progress). I suspect the site you visited that had the “Latin Vulgate” and D-R side-by-side was
which has the Stuttgart Vulgate, a Protestant version.
Here’s some info.:
The first vulgate existed BEFORE St. Jerome. We know it existed, but we only have fragments of it today.
St. Jerome produced his vulgate in the late fourth century. His original edition is not extent as fas as anyone knows.
During the 8th and 9th century a serious effort was made by Frankish monastery scribes to produce a good, clean, well edited vulgate eliminating the numerous mistakes that had crept into the text since the fifth century.
There were minor similar efforts in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries as well in other parts of Europe.
After Gutenberg printed the vulgate there was renewed interest in producing an improved edition (again copying errors compounded over centuries were the problem).
In the sixteenth century there were two papal approved editions of what would pass for critical editions in their day. The first was almost immediately withdrawn because of its numerous errors. The later version became known as the Clementine edition. That edition became the standard edition used right up until the early twentieth century.
In the 1920’s or 1930’s, the pope, (I think it was Pius XI) established the St. Jerome house in Rome to produce a new, critical edition of the vulgate. After years of work it was finished. It totaled 1200 volumes!!! (That’s because of all the textual variants in mss. across Europe).
Pius XII issued a new Psalter, a new book of Psalms to mixed reviews. His version was more accurate but lost much of the familiarity of usage that had existed for centuries. I believe a complete vulgate was also issued, but it became almost immediately unimportant because Pope Pius XII issued an encyclical on Sept. 30, 1943 in which he called for more research into the original languages of scripture. Seemingly overnight the vulgate was dropped all over the place like a hot potato. Okay, I’m exaggerating, but it sure seems that way!
By 1979 another vulgate edition was ready and approved by Pope John Paul II. He also order that the work be done all over again. (This is actually normal, and not indicative of a bad job done by anyone).
The Nova Vulgata (issued 1998) is the last official Church vulgate. ISBN 88-209-2163-4. You can buy this online. There are some clear differences between this and the Clementine edition. Whole verses are missing. Sometimes whole passages are missing. Judith 13 is missing several verses at the end, for instance. By the way, you can see what verses I am referring to by comparing the Douay-Rheims (or Confraternity edition if you have that) with the New American Bible or even the Catholic edition of the Revised Standard Version. The verses are in the D-R, but not in the NAB, but in the footnotes of the RSVCE!
If you want online downloadable text of the the REAL Clementine edition go here: sacredbible.org/
If you want to buy a copy of that same Clementine go here: lulu.com/content/151121
It’s not a great printing job, but it is incredibly cheap! I heard a rumor that www.baroniuspress.com is reprinting a nice copy of the Clementine, but I have no idea if that is true. Baronius Press also sells beautiful Douay-Rheims.
About Douay-Rheims: There are multiple versions. Most out there, like that of Baronius Press, is the Challoner edition revised in 1899. I strongly recommend that anyone who is trying to translate the Clementine edition of the Vulgate should purchase a copy of the original edition of the Douay-Rheims Bible. It is currently available from a sedevacantist named Dr. William von Peters. You can buy it from lulu.com as a book (actually 4 volumes), or as two CDs directly from Peters. The CDs are searchable! The Challoner edition of the Douay-Rheims is noticeably different from the original edition.
Thank you for the sites. I compared their page and found that it matches the 1861 edition, edited by Carolus Vercellone. (btw, we homeschool…so I’m the teacher and thus why I’m hunting down this information myself…This is part of their study on "St. Jerome completes the Vulgate).
Thank you again.
Baronius is working on a printed edition of the Clementine Vulgate.
This might be the Tweedale edition (London, 2006), or
perhaps the Hetzenauer edition, both of which are public domain.
I would not agree that the 1590 Sixtux V edition was withdrawn due
to numerous errors. There are some significant editorial differences
in some verses. I think the ‘errors’ are more in the way of editorial
differences of opinion.
Well, maybe we are both right.
The old ISBE says: “(2) Sixtine Edition (1590) No further steps were taken for the present to secure a standard official Bible for the church—the private edition of John Hentenius of Louvain serving in the meanwhile until the pontificate of Sixtus V. This pope entrusted the work to a committee under Cardinal Caraffa, but he himself strenuously cooperated. Manuscripts and printed editions were examined, but the original Greek or Hebrew was to be regarded as decisive in difficulties. The result was published as the Sixtine edition of the Vulgate by the Vatican press in 1590 (see title on 1st and 2nd pages). The text resembles the Stephanus edition of 1540. A new puzzling method of verse enumeration was introduced. As one would expect, there was prefixed to the edition a Bull Aeternus ille, etc., in which the divines gave themselves credit for their painstaking labors, and the result was declared the authorized Vulgate of the Tridentine Council, “pro vera, legitima, authentica et indubitata, in omnibus publicis privatisque disputationibus …” (“by virtue of truth, usage, authenticity and certainty, in all public and private disputes”). Errors of printing were corrected by the pen or by pasting a slip of paper with the correction over the error. This edition was not to be reprinted for 10 years except at the Vatican, and after that any edition must be compared with the Vatican edition, so that “not even the smallest particle should be altered, added or removed” under pain of the “greater excommunication.” Sixtus died the same year, and the Jesuit Bellarmine persuaded Clement VIII to recall the Sixtine edition and prepare another standard Vulgate in 1592.” 184.108.40.206/search?q=cache:FsnugkjT5VgJ:www.bible-researcher.com/vulgate1.html+1590+vulgate&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4&ie=UTF-8
Sounds like both errors and editorial weirdness to me.
I previously pointed out that Baronius Press is working on a Vulgate. I think it is the Tweedale. Either way, if that rumor is true, there should be a beautiful Vulgate ready for sale in a year or two!
The ISBE has a Protestant bias in its description of the Vulgate.
“The ISBE has a Protestant bias in its description of the Vulgate.”
It probably does, but that doesn’t change the fact that the vulgate in question contained both errors and editorial problems. Catholics acknowledge this fact. There is no harm in doing so.
The old, online Catholic Encyclopedia has no problem admitting that fact: “In 1588 he issued from the Vatican Press an edition of the Septuagint revised according to a Vatican MS. His edition of the Vlugate, printed shortly before his death, was withdrawn from circulation on account of its many errors, corrected, and reissued in 1592 (see BELLARMINE, ROBERT FRANCIS ROMULUS, VENERABLE).”
Yes, but then came the Sixto-Clementine, aka THE Clementine, which stood for well over 350 years before Catholic scholars (!) could even muster enough horsepower to produce another Latin version.
I’ve read the ISBE article a couple of times - verily I say unto you, that which the big print giveth, the little print doth take away.
“Yes, but then came the Sixto-Clementine, aka THE Clementine, which stood for well over 350 years before Catholic scholars (!) could even muster enough horsepower to produce another Latin version.”
True enough. I didn’t see anyone here question that really.
“I’ve read the ISBE article a couple of times - verily I say unto you, that which the big print giveth, the little print doth take away.”
On many things perhaps, but apparently not this. Sixtus’ vulgate contained errors. I don’t see why this is an issue for anyone.
The point is, that as soon as the errors in the Sixtus edition were uncovered, Catholic scholars prepared a revised edition relatively quickly, even given the nature of those tumultuous times. ergo, since the Clementine lasted a bit longer it can’t be all that poor an edition.
Ever wonder when, or even IF, the Church will either
(a) produce its very own definitive Greek and Hebrew texts,
or at least,
(b) make a pronouncement endorsing those produced by others?
You wrote: “The point is, that as soon as the errors in the Sixtus edition were uncovered, Catholic scholars prepared a revised edition relatively quickly, even given the nature of those tumultuous times. ergo, since the Clementine lasted a bit longer it can’t be all that poor an edition.”
Uh, I don’t see how that is the point since no one denied that in this thread as far as I can remember. Also, the Clementine lasted much longer, not necessarily because of its superiority to a previous edition, but because the popes of the late sixteenth century and afterward thought it good enough for the time being. Even Catholic authorities admit it was a provisional text (even if it lasted over 300 years). An essentially sound edition was needed. The Clementine was that edition. When Cardinal Valverde objected to the Clementine vulgate (which was not even yet published) Pope Clement forbade him to ever speak or write about the issue. The pope just wanted a good, solid edition and not the perfect one Valverde fantasized about.
“Ever wonder when, or even IF, the Church will either
(a) produce its very own definitive Greek and Hebrew texts,
or at least, (b) make a pronouncement endorsing those produced by others?”
Nope. There is no reason for me to wonder those ideas.
There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, one definitive version and edition of the Bible: these letters in this order in this language and no other.
If God wanted that, he would have given us the original manuscripts.
There are many good or at least useful versions and editions. The sum total of them all is the Bible, not any one edition.
I realize this, but even the Council of Trent had expressed a desire for a corrected Latin, Greek and Hebrew text; to wit, quoting from Divino Afflante Spiritu,
 “…It is historically certain that the Presidents of the Council (of Trent) received a commission, which they duly carried out, to beg, that is, the Sovereign Pontiff in the name of the Council that he should have corrected, as far as possible, first a Latin, and then a Greek, and Hebrew edition, which eventually would be published for the benefit of the Holy Church of God. If this desire could not then be fully realized owing to the difficulties of the times and other obstacles, at present it can, We earnestly hope, be more perfectly and entirely fulfilled by the united efforts of Catholic scholars.”
I glean from this quote that these texts were to be produced BY Catholic scholars FOR the Church.
So, would I be grasping the essence of your stance by saying
(a) you’re not a huge fan of the Vulgate, and
(b) whatever is used for original-language source texts is just fine with you, so long as they are “original-language”?
Notice that they sought to keep the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin scriptural traditions separate. But the erroneous tendency today is to try to merge all manuscripts into one allegedly definitive (but usually very flawed) translation.
I would love to see official Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Aramaic versions of the Bible: four separate editions, representing different scriptural traditions, which do not try to be exactly the same. These could be useful reference editions from which other editions and other translations could be produced.
But the current state of Biblical scholarship makes this all but impossible. For the present time.