What's wrong with the Vulgate?

Whoever said the Vulgate is not a good translation does not know their Latin. Jerome's Vulgate was a revision of and a great improvement over the many "Old Latin" versions of his day. It unified and influenced the Latin language of it's day (late 5th century on) much like the KJV did the English of its day. I would compare it in translation philosophy and readability to the NASV. I have even occasionally consulted it in my own translation work--I did so today.

"Despite a certain unevenness and even an occasional error in Jerome's work as reviser, the general standard of his labours is high. The Vulgate represents the solid judgement of a competent and careful scholar, passed on textual materials as old (or in some cases older) than those available to textual critics today" (The Early Versions of the New Testament, Bruce Metzger, p. 354-355).

Concerning its Greek text-type, there are over 10,000 mss of the Vulgate, so there are as many opinions about its text-type as there are scholars. However, according to Metzger H. J. Vogels said it was Byzantine and I believe him, because the Vulgate has many passages omitted by Alexandrian mss, such as John 8:1-11, the longer ending of Mark 16, Acts 8:37, 1 John 5:7 etc., are included in the Vulgate. (My version is the 1911 Wordsworth & White edition, which has those last two in the apparatus, but there is plenty of evidence for them being in Jerome's original.) :type:

 

Forgive me for disagreeing, Dr. Cassidy, but the Clementine Vulgate is simply an official edition of Jerome's Vulgate. Here is a website, if you would care to read it and compare with Wordsworth/White's Vulgate with apparatus: http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/text.html

 

The evidence speaks for itself.

John 1:1-3 in Clementine's Vulgate:

1 In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum.
2 Hoc erat in principio apud Deum.
3 Omnia per ipsum facta sunt: et sine ipso factum est nihil, quod factum est.


John 1:1-3 in Wordsworth-White version of Jerome:

1 In principio erat uerbum, et uerbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat uerbum.
2 Hoc erat in principio apud Deum.
3 Omnia per ipsum facta sunt: et sine ipso factum est nihil: quod factum est.


See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate

 

Nothing if God writes it!:Fish:

 

Matthew 24:3 (The Latin Vulgate)
sedente autem eo super montem Oliveti accesserunt ad eum discipuli
secreto dicentes dic nobis quando haec erunt et quod signum adventus
tui et consummationis saeculi


Matthew 24:3 (HCSB= Holman Christian Standard Bible)

While He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached
Him privately and said, "Tell us, when will these things happen?
And what is the sign of Your coming
and of the end of the age?

Mat 24:3 (LKV1611 Edition):
And as he sate vpon the mount of Oliues, the Disciples came vnto
him priuately, saying, Tell vs, when shall these things be?
And what shall be the signe of thy coming,
and of the end of the world?

Back of the $1 bill NOVUS ORDO SECLORIUM

Consider the slogan: NOVUS ORDO SECLORIUM: usually translated 'new order for

the ages"

NOVUS - Latin word from which we get 'new'

ORDO - Latin word from which we get 'order'

SECLORIUM - latin word from which we get 'secular' (not religions, but
of the world) also means "age".

So Novus Ordo Seclorium can indeed mean 'new order for the ages"

But Novus Ordo Seclorium can also mean: 'new order for the world' or 'new world order'.

 

My verses were chosen at random, simply because I like the passage. I'd be happy to compare a whole chapter for you when I get time. Surely you would admit that a whole chapter virtually identical would mean an edition, not a revision.

In the meantime, I'll bite. Please give me proof of your view that the Clementine Vulgate is a revision and not an edition. So far you've given none.

 

I enjoyed everything in your post except for the <sigh>. Thank you for the good information. You have convinced me that the Pslams in the OT was revised, but I'm still not convinced about the rest of the OT or about the NT, about which you wrote nothing. I still plan to do some comparisons and see for myself.

 

Eugene Rice noted that Erasmus agreed with Jacques Lefevre d'Etaples and Paul of Middleburg that the Latin Bible in common use in their day had readings that Jerome said he had corrected (SAINT JEROME, p. 178).

Richard Rolt pointed out that Erasmus wrote Pope Leo X that his design was not "to contradict the vulgar Latin, but to correct the faults that had crept into it" (LIVES OF THE PRINCIPAL REFORMERS, p. 39).

 

Where is the revision?

See, that was my impression about the Vulgate, that there had been various efforts to restore Jerome's original, but not revisions per se. (Granting, of course, Dr. Cassidy his Psalms revision. )

I've just been comparing 1 John 1 in the Clementine Vulgate to the Wordsworth/White Jerome, and here is what I get (other than the W/W tendency to use u instead of v and i instead of j).

V. 6: veritatem non facimus in CV, non facimus ueritatem in W/W--no difference in meaning.
V. 7: emundat in CV, mundat in W/W--no difference in meaning.

That is all there is in 10 verses. Doesn't look like a revision to me. :smilewinkgrin:

 

Now Dr. Cassidy, I'm missing something here. Please enlighten me. I want to be teachable here. :thumbs:

If Jerome wrote the Gallicanum Psalter, and some copies of Jerome's Vulgate used the Gallicanum Psalter, and the Clementine Vulgate used Jerome's Gallicanum, how is Clementine a revision of Jerome???