Latin Vulgate

[kman]

What's wrong with the Latin Vulgate?

Wasn't it the most widely used translation
for over 1,000 years? Does that mean
God's stamp of approval is on it?

:confused:

-kman

[BrianT]

Yes. smile.gif The Vulgate is the word of God.

[kman]

Originally posted by BrianT:
Yes. smile.gif The Vulgate is the word of God.Where can I find out more info about it?

What hebrew/greek texts were the basis of the translation (where the greek texts alexandrian, byzantine, western..etc)?

Why isn't the greek textual basis for it used today by other translations (or maybe it is)?

thanks,
kman

[BrianT]

kman, I don't know enough details off hand to answer your questions thoroughly. You may find all you wanted to know and more at http://www.ntcanon.org/Vulgate.shtml and http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/Versions.html#Vulgate

[ December 11, 2002, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

[rsr]

I'm not sure anyone knows exactly which manuscripts he (and the other translators) used. He started out with the Septaguint to translate the Old Testament and later turned to the Masoretic text.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (very dated now), the most celebrated Vulgate manuscript appears to follow Sinaiticus for the New Testament.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04081a.htm

[ December 11, 2002, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: rsr ]

[Pete Richert]

Hey, BrianT. You seem knowledgable about old translations. I have a question of you. I want to buy a Latin Vulgate but I have heard there are three in print. They are different (versions) of them, and have different spelling and some have no punctuation or something. I am looking for a version that has modern spelling (so whatever I learn in the textbooks I can find in it) and has punctuation. Do you have any suggestions?

You can take your time. I haven't even begun learning Latin yet.

[kman]

Originally posted by rsr:
\According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (very dated now), the most celebrated Vulgate manuscript appears to follow Sinaiticus for the New Testament.

That's very interesting.

Currently I lean towards a Majority Text view but I haven't considered what impact the Latin Vulgate should have on such a view. I've heard it
argued that there are upwards of 10,000 existing vulgate manuscripts and it was used pretty extensively for 1,000 years.....so if you were "looking" for something (manuscript/translation) that dominated (was chosen by God) that would seem to fit the bill.

Still investigating..thanks for all the replies everybody.

-kman

[BrianT]

A great recent translation of the NT was done by Ronald Knox in 1950 (I think). It's kind of hard to find, I luckily found my copy in a used bookstore for $3.

I found on on this page for $13.00 (http://www.iconbook.org/Biblical%20Texts.html) (scroll down to about 2/3 the way down the page, or simply do a word search for "Knox"). Maybe a thorough search of the internet would turn up more purchase options.

[ December 11, 2002, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

[Keith M]

I want to buy a Latin Vulgate but I have heard there are three in print. They are different (versions) of them, and have different spelling and some have no punctuation or something. I am looking for a version that has modern spelling (so whatever I learn in the textbooks I can find in it) and has punctuation. Do you have any suggestions? Pete, if you're serious about wanting to learn Latin so you can study the Vulgate, why don't you use an online version until you see if everything is going to work out for you? There are online versions at 3 different web sites I know of:

CrossWalk
http://www.crosswalk.com

Diatheke Online
http://bibletechnologieswg.org/cgi-bin/diatheke.pl

StudyLight
http://www.studylight.org

Using an online version would allow you to see how things go with your studies, and without paying a hefty cost for the print version(s).

God bless you!
Keith m

[Pete Richert]

Thanks Keith. Don't worry, I won't be actually buying the text until I can read a good amount of it in Latin.

[Dr. Bob]

Latin is a rich and beautiful language, with many nuances that parallel the original Greek. Because of this, there is a good deal of benefit from reading and studying it.

I sat in the cave (next one to the site of the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem) were Hieronymous translated the Vulgate. It is not gaudy and "touristy" like the area of the nativity and probably gives a better sense of what it was like 2000 years ago.

And the vibes it gave had the hair on my arms standing on end. Lots of energy in that place!

[kman]

Originally posted by kman:
What hebrew/greek texts were the basis of the translation (where the greek texts alexandrian, byzantine, western..etc)?
For anyone interested..this came from a link
BrianT gave:

"Scholars cannot even agree on the text-type of the original Vulgate. In the gospels, some have called it Alexandrian and some Byzantine. In fact it has readings of both types, as well as a number of "Western" readings which are probably holdovers from the Old Latin. The strongest single strand, however, seems to be Byzantine; in 870 test passages, I found it to agree with the Byzantine manuscripts 60-70% of the time and with and B only about 45% of the time."

http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/Versions.html#Vulgate