I believe the Navarre (N.T. Expanded Ed.), which I REALLY like, includes the "Nova Vulgata" which is the textual basis for all liturgical translations per L.A.I like the original poster's, Dr. Marshall's, link to NewAdvent.org/bible/ (with Greek, D-R, & Clementine Vulgate). Thanks!
sorry, I need an EDIT button :)..."Nova Vulgata" which *shares* [not "is"] the textual basis for all liturgical translations per L.A.
As I don't know a word of Latin, I'll stick with the NABRE, NRSV, and NJB english translations. I guess I could go to school and learn some Latin, but as my daughter is going to turn 13, I'm learning whatever language it is that she talks on occasion. :)
Russ,I agree with you, but I am also quite confident that you know a few words of Latin! ;).
Since there is so much variation in the Vulgate (even the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate was issued four different times, in 1590, 1592, 1593, and 1598 -- with numerous changes and corrections) I think that for serious study of the Vulgate, a critical apparatus is needed and that means using the Weber-Gryson edition (I recommend the fifth edition from 2007) or Henri Quentin's edition (at least his book, Mémoire sur l'établissement du texte de la Vulgate is an absolute must read to understand the problems with establishing a Vulgate text). Without a critical apparatus, one does not really understand the tremendous variation in Vulgate manuscripts.Now, of course, some people may not be interested in establishing the historical Vulgate, but may only just want a copy to read. For those people, I recommend the the Dunbarton Oaks series, which is enjoyable and a breeze to read with a lovely format (and a diglot with Douay-Rheims-Challoner). The text is synthetic (since the translation likely used an earlier edition than the Sixto-Clementine) but is OK for casual reading.One translation that I cannot recommend is the Nova Vulgata. This translation has been criticized by scholars across the spectrum -- from liberal to conservative. I must say that it is especially unreliable in the Deuterocanonicals. The fact of the matter is that for contemporary translations, one is much better off consulting scholarly English, French, or German translations than Nova Vulgata.
The Nova Vulgata is not an 'update' of the traditional Vulgate going back to Jerome and back through the Old Latin translations that pre-dated Jerome...The Nova Vulgata is in fact a brand new translation from the Greek and Hebrew into Latin and as such is not based on any previous Latin Translation.Which is why it can be said that the Church does not have one 'official' Latin translation, but has at least three, the Nova Vulgata being one of the three.
Biblical Catholic:Have you actually read the Nova Vulgata? I do not understand how you can make the claim that the Nova Vulgata is "a brand new translation from the Greek and Hebrew into Latin and as such is not based on any previous Latin Translation."The very first page of text of the Nova Vulgata after the table of contents (the Constitutio Apostolica) the text explicitly states that it is a revision (the Latin term used is recognitione):In qua recognitione efficienda “ad verbum ratio habita est veteris textus editionis Vulgatae, ubi videlicet primigenii textus accurate referuntur, quales in hodiernis editionibus, ad criticam rationem exactis, referuntur; prudenter vero ille est emendatus, ubi de iis deflectit vel minus recte eosdem interpretatur. Quam ob rem Latinitas biblica christiana est adhibita, ita ut aequa aestimatio traditionis cum iustis postulationibus artis criticae, his temporibus vigentis, temperaretur” (cfr. Alloc. Pauli VI, 23 Dec. 1966; A.A.S. LIX, 1967, pp. 53 s.).
The Clementina Vulgata. The Nova strikes me as, "hey, we read Nestle-Aland and BHS and struck out everything that wasn't in the text, but didn't bother reviewing for continuity".
Russ: those are some extraordinarily [strike]bad[/strike] sub-optimal translations. Try reading a DRC, ESV, KJV, or even RSV-2CE or Old JB some time and see how much more the Bible reads as Scripture instead of scriptures, and the NT doesn't feel like an afterthought tacked on to the OT or vice-versa.
Chrysostom:Right...suboptimal. Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge.
I've been told I come on a bit too aggressively, so I try to come up with forceful bowdlerisms, instead of being bowdlerized forcefully.
Post a Comment