Question on Novum Testamentum Latine

I recently puchased a softcover edition of the Novum Testamentum Latine (Latin Vulgate New Testament) by John Wordsworth & Henry White for cheap, and couldnt pass it up; however, I don't know anything about it, and was wondering if anyone had a copy of this, had read it, or know more about it? It seems to align with my Clementina Vulgata pretty well, except in some places:

• John 3:16, Novum Testamentum Latine: "Sic enim dilexit Deus mundum, ut Filium suum unigenitum daret : ut omnis qui credit in eum, non pereat, sed habeat uitam aeternam."
• John 3:16, Vulgatam Clementinam: "Sic enim Deus dilexit mundum, ut Filium suum unigenitum daret : ut omnis qui credit in eum, non pereat, sed habeat vitam æternam."

I don't consider them to be entirely monumental changes, as deus dilexit / dilexit deus does not change the appliance of the verse, but the Novum Testamentum Latine and Nova Vulgata (1979) match in this 'dilexit deus' parsing, so I am almost certain that this is a relatively new translation, but I will need to check when I get home. Does anyone know where I could find a scan of the Codex Amiatinus? I hear it is the best preserved manuscript of the Latin Vulgate we have, and was wondering if anyone knew where I could find it to use for future study/discernment? Thanks!

concretecamper said:

https://www.loc.gov/resource/gdcwdl.wdl_20150/?st=gallery

Click to expand...

Thank you!

See here the Codex Amiatinus of John 3:16, which states: "Sic enim dilexit deus mundum ut fiUum suum unigenitum daret, ut omnis qui credit in eum non pereat, sed habeat vitam aeternam."



Thus, the Codex Amiatinus, Novum Testamentum Latine, and Nova Vulgata (1979) [among others, such as the Stuttgart Vulgate] match in this 'dilexit deus' parsing; it is the Vulgatam Clementinam that is the odd manuscript out. It would proceed, logically, that the Sixtine Vulgate [which is the culmination of the Codex Amiatinus] to be more authoritative than the Clementine Vulgate; however, Clement VIII had the copies of the Sixtine Vulgate recalled in 1592, with St. Robert Bellarmine & Clementine VIII correcting of six thousand errors in the Sixtine Vulgate, ascribing them to being 'press errors.' It was "proved to be so defective that it was withdrawn" (Jaroslav Pelikan. "1: Sacred Philology," 1996, p. 14). It was issued through the bull Cum Sacrorum which asserted that every subsequent edition must be assimilated to this one, that no word of the text may be changed and that variant readings may not be printed in the margin: "We command therefore all and every one, Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, and other Churches and localities, even regular Prelates, to see to it that the letters before them are observed inviolably by all in their respective Churches and jurisdictions."

However, the Vulgate was declared to "be held as authentic" by the Catholic Church by the Council of Trent: "Moreover, this sacred and holy Synod,—considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,—ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever." The issue here is that Trent concluded in 1563, while the Clementine Vulgate was promulgated in 1593, thus was not "now in circulation" at the time of Trent; note, though, that the Clementine Vulgate was promulgated as the legitimate heir to the Vulgate tradition approved at Trent, which did not limit "authenticity" to specific manuscripts from its time but rather affirmed the textual tradition that the Clementine Vulgate represented faithfully. Trent, rather, is a codification of the authority of the Clementine Vulgate, as the "old and Vulgate edition" is authentic, and the Clementine Vulgate retroactively fulfilled the Council of Trent's directive by codifying the "old and Vulgate edition" into a single, authoritative form.


Onto the Douay-Rheims, the first important note to make is that the Douay-Rheims project began in the 1560s, with the Rheims New Testament published in 1582 [almost a decade prior to the promulgation of the Clementine Vulgate in 1593]. The Rheims New Testament translators were working from pre-Clementine Leuven Vulgate, which qualified a Vulgate edition "now in circulation" (cf. Trent's declaration). However, the Douay Old Testament was completed in 1609, almost 15 years after the promulgation of the Clementine Vulgate in 1593. Again, this would indicate, logically, that the Douay Old Testament would use the Clementine Vulgate as its authoritative edition. However, by the time the Old Testament was completed, the translators had been working in exile for decades, and their textual methods suggest continuity with earlier sources rather than a switch to the newly promulgated Clementine text. We see evidence of this with the Challoner Bible (a so-called "Douay-Rheims" translation), as it began its translation process well after Cum Sacrorum, and thus used the Clementine Vulgate as its type. Moreover, while Cum Sacrorum mandated conformity to the Clementine text for Latin editions, this directive did not directly apply to vernacular translations like the Douay-Rheims.

The fact that the Douay-Rheims did not use the Clementine Vulgate specifically is not an issue, as Sixtus V's commission of the Sixtine Vulgate worked on the basis of the 1583 edition by Franciscus Lucas Brugensis of the Leuven Vulgate. This Sixtine Vulgate, based on the Leuven Vulgate, became the Clementine Vulgate due to the reasons mentioned earlier. Thus, the Douay-Rheims used the predecessor to the Clementine Vulgate (the Leuven Vulgate) as its type, reflecting the declaration of Trent that it was authentic. Note that the text of the Sixtine Vulgate has some differences with the text of the Leuven Vulgate, such as 43 changes made to the Book of Genesis chapters 40–50 compared to the editions of the Leuven Vulgate. Of these 43 corrections, 31 are of purely orthographic significance; and of those 31, six concern proper nouns.


The Douay-Rheims retains not only the congruency with the Declaration of Trent, but also with Cum Sacrorum. Thus, there is no reason to deny the Douay-Rheims Bible as authentic and infallible, as it was based not only on a Vulgate that was declared authentic by the Council of Trent, but that specific Vulgate was later used to craft the Clementine Vulgate, which declares Cum Sacrorum to be the authoritative text for future Church use. We can say with scholarly backing that the Douay-Rheims is the perfect English translation, as it comes from an authentic Vulgate edition that became the basis for the official, inerrant text for the Church.

Bob Crowley said:

This is probably irrelevant to the topic, but I'm doing a U3A course in Latin.

One thing I've learned is that in Latin word order is not very important, as words are linked by their conjugations and declensions.

For what it is worth.

My Weber-Gryson copy of the Vulgate has for "Iohannem 3:16 - sic enim dilexit Deus mundum ut Filium suum unigenitum daret..."

I put a joke about Cicero and the Latin language elsewhere, but here is another.

"Q. What happens to Latin teachers when they lose their jobs?

A. They decline."

Click to expand...

Absolutely! You are entirely correct! Though there is no difference in the parsing, the Church has historically withheld changes in the parsing of the Vulgate due to Trent, and thus, the differing word order is important to identify which possible source text they used. Thank you so much for your input, as I had not previously checked the Weber-Gryson; I will add it to my list in my previous post. I loved the joke, by the way!