Roman Catholics: Which Vulgate and Why?

[childofdust]

This question is intended for Roman Catholics on the board.

Which one of the Vulgates do you prefer and why?
Clementine?
Stuttgart?
Nuova?

Online, I found a very easy way to tell the difference... If Gen 3:20 has "Heva," it is Clementine. If it has "Hava," it is Stuttgart. If it has "Eva," it is Nuova.

Just curious.

(And if you were to ask me which Masoretic text I prefer, I would say Leningrad. Of course! Sure, Aleppo is better, but it is not complete. MS Oriental 4445 and the Damascus Pentateuch are also very good, but neither has more than the Torah, which limits their value. The Cairo Codex of the Prophets is pretty great, but represents the lesser Ben Naphtali tradition instead of the greater Ben Asher. What about Ben Chayyim's printed edition--the Hebrew basis of the KJV's OT? Don't bother--that thing is strewn with so many errors it isn't worth your time).

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Speaking purely from a historical point of view, the Stuttgart edition is the most up-to-date critically reconstructed text. It attempts, as far as possible, to present the original text of the Vulgate as translated by Jerome, including the Eusebian canons and Jerome's prefaces to each book.

Both the Clementine and the Nova are official and authorized Catholic revisions of the Vulgate that exist for liturgical purposes. As I am neither a Latin scholar nor am I experienced in Latin worship, and thus have never picked up a sense for literary Latin or for the beauty of its style, I cannot comment on the relative worth of either. But suffice it to say, style and beauty are the primary reasons for preferring these liturgical Bibles, must as one might prefer the King James Version for liturgical reading and responsive chant even while recognize its inferiority as a text.

 

[Erose]

This question is intended for Roman Catholics on the board.

Which one of the Vulgates do you prefer and why?
Clementine?
Stuttgart?
Nuova?

Online, I found a very easy way to tell the difference... If Gen 3:20 has "Heva," it is Clementine. If it has "Hava," it is Stuttgart. If it has "Eva," it is Nuova.

Just curious.

(And if you were to ask me which Masoretic text I prefer, I would say Leningrad. Of course! Sure, Aleppo is better, but it is not complete. MS Oriental 4445 and the Damascus Pentateuch are also very good, but neither has more than the Torah, which limits their value. The Cairo Codex of the Prophets is pretty great, but represents the lesser Ben Naphtali tradition instead of the greater Ben Asher. What about Ben Chayyim's printed edition--the Hebrew basis of the KJV's OT? Don't bother--that thing is strewn with so many errors it isn't worth your time).

Well currently only the Clementine Vulgate has been translated into English, so I have to go with that one. Although being Catholic, I do not speak or read much Latin. Some but not enough to read a Bible, without much headache and misinterpretations.

 

[childofdust]

Does getting back to Jerome's original Vulgate matter that much to any of you (RE: the Stuttgart)?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Does getting back to Jerome's original Vulgate matter that much to any of you (RE: the Stuttgart)?

It's at least quite important for textual criticism, because knowing the Vorlage (the Hebrew and Greek textual witnesses used by Jerome that we can reconstruct from his Latin) is an important part of textual criticism. It's the same reason we want to know the original text of the Aramaic Targumim, the Greek Septuagint, or the Syriac Peshitta. After all, Jerome was certainly using better Hebrew texts for his translation than are found in the Old Latin versions (which, not incidentally, were used by Augustine).

 

[Erose]

Does getting back to Jerome's original Vulgate matter that much to any of you (RE: the Stuttgart)?

Yes and no. One problem we have is that we don't have the original manuscript of St. Jerome. And just like over the centuries one must reevaluate the language used in relation to the original understanding, so to has the Vulgate gone through revisions to conform with the understanding of the language in the current period that the revision has occurred.

A little fact that most folks I would imagine don't want to know is that even the Hebrew OT has gone through revisions as well as the Greek NT. The Masoretic text is a revision based upon both Babylonian and Palestinian texts. The Jews learned that there were inconsistencies between manuscripts just like we have learned of this. And the Masoretic text was an attempt to reconcile those inconsistencies between the two most popular manuscript traditions.

The Clementine Vulgate is a wonderful translation in my opinion, and it served the Church for over 500 years. So me I'll stick with that one for now until the Church decides to translate the New Vulgate into English.

 

[Erose]

It's at least quite important for textual criticism, because knowing the Vorlage (the Hebrew and Greek textual witnesses used by Jerome that we can reconstruct from his Latin) is an important part of textual criticism. It's the same reason we want to know the original text of the Aramaic Targumim, the Greek Septuagint, or the Syriac Peshitta. After all, Jerome was certainly using better Hebrew texts for his translation than are found in the Old Latin versions (which, not incidentally, were used by Augustine).

Well the Old Latin versions were translations of the Septuigint and not from Hebrew manuscripts.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Well the Old Latin versions were translations of the Septuigint and not from Hebrew manuscripts.

Right, of course. Hebrew texts at all.

 

[childofdust]

Yes and no. One problem we have is that we don't have the original manuscript of St. Jerome. And just like over the centuries one must reevaluate the language used in relation to the original understanding, so to has the Vulgate gone through revisions to conform with the understanding of the language in the current period that the revision has occurred.

So is one better than the other--theologically, doctrinally, or liturgically? Does the Roman Catholic Church recognize one as superior to the others? Do you agree?

The Masoretic text is a revision based upon both Babylonian and Palestinian texts.

Not to derail the thread on a tangent, but I just wanted to note that this is not really the case--the Hebrew consonantal text is exactly the same in the Babylonian, Palestinian, and Masoretic texts. What makes them different is their accentuation and vocalization systems. And while it is true that the systems influenced each other, it is not correct to say that the Masoretic is a revision based on them because all three represent completely different, self-contained vocalization systems that are incompatible with one another. As an example, in the Babylonian manuscripts, for instance, the eastern Jews pronounced "silver" as "kasp," but in the Masoretic, they pronounced it as "kesef," yet both agree that the consonants are KSP. The consonantal text itself is identical. Tangent off.

 

[childofdust]

It's at least quite important for textual criticism

Is that one of the Stuttgart's primary values? Textual criticism? How important is that to the church and its theology? How does that relate the value(s) of the Clementine or Nova Vulgates?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Is that one of the Stuttgart's primary values? Textual criticism? How important is that to the church and its theology? How does that relate the value(s) of the Clementine or Nova Vulgates?

Yes, absolutely. The Stuttgard is a critical reconstructed text of the Vulgate that can hopefully allow us to critically reconstruct the Volage (Hebrew and Greek texts) behind it, which can in turn help us reconstruct the text of the autographs of Scripture.

Text criticism, I firmly believe, is an essential task in exegesis if we're basing our theology on a close and careful reading of the text of Scripture. Jerome actually had a hand in doing just that: his Vulgate translation was an implicit criticism of the Old Latin versions already in use, which contained an erroneous variant reading of Romans 5 that supported Augustine's particular theology of original sin but doesn't fit the structure of Paul's argument.

The Clementine and Nova Vulgata may be relatively useless when it comes to textual criticism, however, their beauty has its purposes for liturgical chant and literary readings. I wouldn't want to base a theology off of them, but, for what it's worth, Catholics don't strictly base their theology on the careful and close reading of Scripture, anyway. They are primarily ecclesiastical texts, with the same worth as the King James in English- a tool for the church's task of proclaiming the gospel and celebrating the sacraments, not a resource for (re)constructing theology or doing serious biblical scholarship.

 

[Erose]

So is one better than the other--theologically, doctrinally, or liturgically? Does the Roman Catholic Church recognize one as superior to the others? Do you agree?

I'm not sure if there is an official position on the matter; but one can conclude the Clementine version probably has the edge. It was the official Bible and the basis for all vernacular translations for 500 years.

As far as I know the New Vulgate is used primarily for liturgical purposes only. The lack of an attempt to translate this version into English is probably telling.

The Stuttgurt doesn't have any official standing at all.

Not to derail the thread on a tangent, but I just wanted to note that this is not really the case--the Hebrew consonantal text is exactly the same in the Babylonian, Palestinian, and Masoretic texts. What makes them different is their accentuation and vocalization systems. And while it is true that the systems influenced each other, it is not correct to say that the Masoretic is a revision based on them because all three represent completely different, self-contained vocalization systems that are incompatible with one another. As an example, in the Babylonian manuscripts, for instance, the eastern Jews pronounced "silver" as "kasp," but in the Masoretic, they pronounced it as "kesef," yet both agree that the consonants are KSP. The consonantal text itself is identical. Tangent off.

Considering that those tittles are significantly important in understanding the meaning of Hebrew words as well, one can very easily conclude that they were differing manuscripts that had to be reconciled.

That being said as the Septuigint and the writings from the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as the witness of the Vulgat, and modern critical analysis shows that the Hebrew text has gone through more than one significant revision in its history.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I'm actually unfamiliar with any sort of Babylonian Hebrew text, but if the Palestinian text referred to is the Qumran scrolls, then yes, those consonantal texts do in fact differ from the later Masoretic text(s).

 

[Erose]

Is that one of the Stuttgart's primary values? Textual criticism?

I would imagine it is really its only value.

How important is that to the church and its theology?

Not important at all.

How does that relate the value(s) of the Clementine or Nova Vulgates?

It would obviously not be of the same value of the later two. The Clementine and Nova Vulgates have official status within the Church, where the Stuttgart is not tied to the Church at all.

 

[WisdomTree]

We still use the Vulgate?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I would imagine it is really its only value.

Not important at all.

It would obviously not be of the same value of the later two. The Clementine and Nova Vulgates have official status within the Church, where the Stuttgart is not tied to the Church at all.

I know a lot of Catholic textual critics who would beg to differ.

 

[Erose]

We still use the Vulgate?

Yes many do. I am one of them as I am not a fan of the modern Bible.

 

[WisdomTree]

Yes many do. I am one of them as I am not a fan of the modern Bible.

Huh. I use the Orthodox Study Bible (OSB) which uses the New Authorised Version (NKJV) as the back bone while using the Septuagint as a standard for the Old Testament. So I guess I still have some connection to the old Latin Vulgate...

 

[Erose]

I know a lot of Catholic textual critics who would beg to differ.

They can, but it doesn't take away from my opinion. I'm with Pope Emeritus on this one, that the literal sense is overemphasized today, and that the Spiritual senses of Scripture need to be brought back into balance with the literal sense. Right now among scholars the Bible has become nothing more than a historical document; and that needs to change.

I'm not saying that the literal sense isn't important, but it isn't the only sense of Scripture. Balance must be found between the literal and spiritual senses. It seems that whenever there is an imbalance between textual criticism and Lectio Divina, the Church ceases to be theologically healthy.

I think that the balance is returning (thank God), thanks to some wonderful efforts of our magisterium as of late.

For Catholics the Vulgate should be THE BIBLE of the Church because it was THE BIBLE of the Church for 1200-1500 years. The Vulgate has been to Catholics what the LXX has been for the Orthodox. So when you read the great treatises of theology in the Middle Ages that have come out of the West, it is the Vulgate that has been the underlying Biblical Tradition that has inspired these incredible scholarly works.

Personally I think it is telling when you compare the works of the Church with the Vulgate as its official Bible, and the what I call "mutt" bibles in the modern period. You look at all the passion of the Medieval Church that created some of the greatest works of art and owe-inspiring cathedrals, inspired men to leave their countries to fight in a foreign land for their Christian brothers, to see their faith in every segment of their lives, men and women by the droves giving their entire lives to God as religious, priests, missionaries, etc.; and compare that with a Modern Church who sees their faith as something to do on Sunday morning if they don't have something better to do, and their values as something that shouldn't be defended, bland churches, bad music, low participation rate in the ministries, little desire to learn about Jesus, etc.

There is something to be said about a Bible translated by a Saint.

 

[Erose]

Huh. I use the Orthodox Study Bible (OSB) which uses the New Authorised Version (NKJV) as the back bone while using the Septuagint as a standard for the Old Testament. So I guess I still have some connection to the old Latin Vulgate...

Um not really, the Vulgate was not a translation of the LXX as many seem to think. St. Jerome were he was able translated from Hebrew manuscripts, the only exceptions are the New Testament (obviously), the Psalms and some of the Deuterocanonicals.