Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [textualcriticism] searching the NA27 apparatus

Expand Messages
  • Jan Krans
    Jeff, Tommy and other, Indeed, SESB is the way to go for such searches. I find just 4 instances of ex lat? : Mt 5:12; 11:28; Lk 15:4; 2 Tim 3:17. However, ex
    Message 1 of 10 , Dec 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Jeff, Tommy and other,

      Indeed, SESB is the way to go for such searches.

      I find just 4 instances of "ex lat?": Mt 5:12; 11:28; Lk 15:4; 2 Tim 3:17.
      However, "ex latt?" exists as well, 10 times: Mt 27:51; Mk 1:38; 15:23; 1 Cor 7:28; 2 Cor 1:13; Gal 1:13; 1:23; Eph 4:15; Col 4:9; Heb 7:28.
      The latter, "ex latt?", is something of a surprise, for it is not mentioned in the introduction (p. 15*/57*). Moreover, the apparatus has "ex lat?" (or "ex lat?"), not "ex lat?" etc. Not that anyone would notice that, of course, or that it would matter …

      Other possibilities, "ex it?" or "ex vg?", do not occur, BTW.
      And what about other languages? At Mt 5:12 I noticed "ex lat? bo?", also a surprise. No other examples, as far as I see. But do not forget to look at Mk 5:41 for something that would need an entire commentary …

      Greetings,
      Jan Krans

      From: Tommy Wasserman <tommy.wasserman@...>
      Reply-To: "textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com" <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
      Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 10:38:45 +0100
      To: "textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com" <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
      Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] searching the NA27 apparatus

       

      Dear Jeff,


      I think it is possible with the Stuttgart Electronic Study Bible (SESB). Go ahead and read Jan Krans's extensive review in the TC journal vol. 11 (2006), http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/v11/index.html,  where he tries out many different search options.

      Best,

      Tommy Wasserman

      http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/v11/index.html
      1 dec 2011 kl. 00.38 skrev Jeff Cate:

       

      Is there a way to search the NA27 critical apparatus for all the "ex lat?" (ex versione latina) references? I've looked online at the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft and INTF websites but don't spot any way to search the apparatus, just the text. Or is there a list of the "ex lat?" references in NA27 available somewhere? Thanks in advance.

      --Jeff Cate,
      Riverside, CA


    • Tommy Wasserman
      Jan and Jeff, how useful to send a query to the TC-list and some kind soul does the work for you ;-). I am glad I pointed to the right resource(s) = SESB/Jan
      Message 2 of 10 , Dec 1, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Jan and Jeff,

        how useful to send a query to the TC-list and some kind soul does the work for you  ;-). I am glad I pointed to the right resource(s) = SESB/Jan Krans.


        Tommy Wasserman


        1 dec 2011 kl. 12.46 skrev Jan Krans:

         

        Jeff, Tommy and other,

        Indeed, SESB is the way to go for such searches.

        I find just 4 instances of "ex lat?": Mt 5:12; 11:28; Lk 15:4; 2 Tim 3:17.
        However, "ex latt?" exists as well, 10 times: Mt 27:51; Mk 1:38; 15:23; 1 Cor 7:28; 2 Cor 1:13; Gal 1:13; 1:23; Eph 4:15; Col 4:9; Heb 7:28.
        The latter, "ex latt?", is something of a surprise, for it is not mentioned in the introduction (p. 15*/57*). Moreover, the apparatus has "ex lat?" (or "ex lat?"), not "ex lat?" etc. Not that anyone would notice that, of course, or that it would matter …

        Other possibilities, "ex it?" or "ex vg?", do not occur, BTW.
        And what about other languages? At Mt 5:12 I noticed "ex lat? bo?", also a surprise. No other examples, as far as I see. But do not forget to look at Mk 5:41 for something that would need an entire commentary …

        Greetings,
        Jan Krans

        From: Tommy Wasserman <tommy.wasserman@...>
        Reply-To: "textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com" <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
        Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 10:38:45 +0100
        To: "textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com" <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
        Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] searching the NA27 apparatus

         
        Dear Jeff,

        I think it is possible with the Stuttgart Electronic Study Bible (SESB). Go ahead and read Jan Krans's extensive review in the TC journal vol. 11 (2006), http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/v11/index.html,  where he tries out many different search options.

        Best,

        Tommy Wasserman

        http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/v11/index.html
        1 dec 2011 kl. 00.38 skrev Jeff Cate:

         

        Is there a way to search the NA27 critical apparatus for all the "ex lat?" (ex versione latina) references? I've looked online at the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft and INTF websites but don't spot any way to search the apparatus, just the text. Or is there a list of the "ex lat?" references in NA27 available somewhere? Thanks in advance.

        --Jeff Cate,
        Riverside, CA





      • Jeff Cate
        Thanks, Tommy and Jan. And yes, Jan, thank you for providing the complete list (without me directly asking) since I obviously don t have the SESB. It s kind of
        Message 3 of 10 , Dec 1, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks, Tommy and Jan. And yes, Jan, thank you for providing the complete list (without me directly asking) since I obviously don't have the SESB. It's kind of disappointing because I have both Logos and BibleWorks 9, but neither have the NA27 apparatus... although they have plenty of other TC resources (e.g., Tisch8, WH, von Soden, Metzger's comm, the CNTTS module, etc.). Looks like everything else in the SESB I already have in those 2 programs... except the NA27 apparatus... which is kind of important to me. I'll have to consider adding it into Logos because it sure would be nice to search for specific manuscripts in the apparatus.

          That's certainly an interesting collection of variants. The one in Mark 15:23 stumped me for a bit until I realized that the Nova Vulgata in my NA27 Graece et Latine reads differently (ille autem non acccepit) compared to the Clementine & Wordsworth-White (et non accepit).

          I'm not completely convinced the one in Heb 7:28 is "ex latt"... since it seems to be attested in p46vid, 016vid, & 1573 which are not Greek-Latin diglots... and it's also in 256 (a Greek-Armenian diglot)... and the Latin fluctuates also: sacerdotes in Clementine & WW; pontifices in Nova Vulgata.

          The others are really fascinating to see comparing the Greek and Latin. It makes me wonder how many more of these types of readings exist that aren't mentioned in NA27.

          Thanks again,
          --Jeff

          On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 6:21 AM, Tommy Wasserman <tommy.wasserman@...> wrote:
           

          Jan and Jeff,


          how useful to send a query to the TC-list and some kind soul does the work for you  ;-). I am glad I pointed to the right resource(s) = SESB/Jan Krans.


          Tommy Wasserman


          1 dec 2011 kl. 12.46 skrev Jan Krans:

           

          Jeff, Tommy and other,

          Indeed, SESB is the way to go for such searches.

          I find just 4 instances of "ex lat?": Mt 5:12; 11:28; Lk 15:4; 2 Tim 3:17.
          However, "ex latt?" exists as well, 10 times: Mt 27:51; Mk 1:38; 15:23; 1 Cor 7:28; 2 Cor 1:13; Gal 1:13; 1:23; Eph 4:15; Col 4:9; Heb 7:28.
          The latter, "ex latt?", is something of a surprise, for it is not mentioned in the introduction (p. 15*/57*). Moreover, the apparatus has "ex lat?" (or "ex lat?"), not "ex lat?" etc. Not that anyone would notice that, of course, or that it would matter …

          Other possibilities, "ex it?" or "ex vg?", do not occur, BTW.
          And what about other languages? At Mt 5:12 I noticed "ex lat? bo?", also a surprise. No other examples, as far as I see. But do not forget to look at Mk 5:41 for something that would need an entire commentary …

          Greetings,
          Jan Krans

          From: Tommy Wasserman <tommy.wasserman@...>
          Reply-To: "textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com" <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
          Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 10:38:45 +0100
          To: "textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com" <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
          Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] searching the NA27 apparatus

           
          Dear Jeff,

          I think it is possible with the Stuttgart Electronic Study Bible (SESB). Go ahead and read Jan Krans's extensive review in the TC journal vol. 11 (2006), http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/v11/index.html,  where he tries out many different search options.

          Best,

          Tommy Wasserman

          http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/v11/index.html
          1 dec 2011 kl. 00.38 skrev Jeff Cate:

           

          Is there a way to search the NA27 critical apparatus for all the "ex lat?" (ex versione latina) references? I've looked online at the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft and INTF websites but don't spot any way to search the apparatus, just the text. Or is there a list of the "ex lat?" references in NA27 available somewhere? Thanks in advance.

          --Jeff Cate,
          Riverside, CA






        • Daniel Buck
          Jeff Cate wrote: That s certainly an interesting collection of variants. The one in Mark 15:23 stumped me for a bit until I realized that
          Message 4 of 10 , Dec 2, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Jeff Cate <jjcate@...> wrote:
            That's certainly an interesting collection of variants. The one in Mark 15:23 stumped me for a bit until I realized that the Nova Vulgata in my NA27 Graece et Latine reads differently (ille autem non acccepit) compared to the Clementine & Wordsworth-White (et non accepit).
            ________________________________

            The GBS Nova Vulgata is not a Vulgate edition in any meaningful sense; it is a Latin translation of the UBS Greek text, conformed to the lexicon of the Vulgate. To ascertain the actual Vulgate reading(s) you must constantly refer to the footnotes. In the verse in question, for example, the NV reads:

            Et dabant ei myrrhatum vinum, ille autem non accepit.

            Every printed edition of the actual Vulgate, on the other hand, reads:

            Et dabant ei bibere myrrhatum vinum, et non accepit.

            Now you can see the Latin influence on D, which reads KAI for et


            Daniel Buck
          • John McChesney-Young
            ... I m sorry, but the latter statement contradicts the official statement of its origin. It s a revision of Jerome s Vulgate with corrections in the direction
            Message 5 of 10 , Dec 3, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Daniel Buck <bucksburg@...> wrote in part:

              > The GBS Nova Vulgata is not a Vulgate edition in any meaningful sense; it is a Latin translation of the UBS Greek text, conformed to the lexicon of the Vulgate.

              I'm sorry, but the latter statement contradicts the official statement
              of its origin. It's a revision of Jerome's Vulgate with corrections in
              the direction of modern critical editions.

              From "Scripturarum Thesaurus," which prefaces the _Nova Vulgata_:

              "In realizing this revision, 'the old text of the Vulgate edition was
              taken into consideration word for word, namely, whenever the original
              texts are accurately rendered, such as they are found in modern
              critical editions; however the text was prudently improved, whenever
              it departs from them or interprets them less correctly. For this
              reason Christian biblical Latinity was used so that a just evaluation
              of tradition might be properly combined with the legitimate demands of
              critical science prevailing in these times.' (cf. Allocution of Paul
              VI, 23 December 1966; AAS vol. LIX, 1967, pp. 53 ff.)"

              http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19790425_scripturarum-thesaurus_en.html

              See also this article from _CBQ_:

              http://cba.cua.edu/clifnv.cfm

              Whether it's an edition of the Vulgate in "any meaningful sense"
              depends on the meaning of "meaningful," I suppose.

              If you compare the text of the Nova and Clementine Vulgates, you'll
              find very few differences (as in, primarily minor changes every five
              or ten verses, either to clarify the meaning of the Latin or to align
              it to a more critical Greek text). It's definitely not a new
              Vulgate-lexicon Latin translation from the Greek of any edition,
              NA/UBS or other.

              John


              --
              John McChesney-Young ** Berkeley, California, U.S.A.
              JMcCYoung~at~gmail.com ** http://twitter.com/jmccyoung
            • TeunisV
              Conclusion: The Nova Vulgata is a modern artefact. Do not use this text for textcritical work. Teunis van lopik
              Message 6 of 10 , Dec 4, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Conclusion: The Nova Vulgata is a modern artefact.
                Do not use this text for textcritical work.
                Teunis van lopik

                --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, John McChesney-Young <jmccyoung@...> wrote:
                >
                > On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Daniel Buck <bucksburg@...> wrote in part:
                >
                > > The GBS Nova Vulgata is not a Vulgate edition in any meaningful sense; it is a Latin translation of the UBS Greek text, conformed to the lexicon of the Vulgate.
                >
                > I'm sorry, but the latter statement contradicts the official statement
                > of its origin. It's a revision of Jerome's Vulgate with corrections in
                > the direction of modern critical editions.
                >
                > From "Scripturarum Thesaurus," which prefaces the _Nova Vulgata_:
                >
                > "In realizing this revision, 'the old text of the Vulgate edition was
                > taken into consideration word for word, namely, whenever the original
                > texts are accurately rendered, such as they are found in modern
                > critical editions; however the text was prudently improved, whenever
                > it departs from them or interprets them less correctly. For this
                > reason Christian biblical Latinity was used so that a just evaluation
                > of tradition might be properly combined with the legitimate demands of
                > critical science prevailing in these times.' (cf. Allocution of Paul
                > VI, 23 December 1966; AAS vol. LIX, 1967, pp. 53 ff.)"
                >
                > http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19790425_scripturarum-thesaurus_en.html
                >
                > See also this article from _CBQ_:
                >
                > http://cba.cua.edu/clifnv.cfm
                >
                > Whether it's an edition of the Vulgate in "any meaningful sense"
                > depends on the meaning of "meaningful," I suppose.
                >
                > If you compare the text of the Nova and Clementine Vulgates, you'll
                > find very few differences (as in, primarily minor changes every five
                > or ten verses, either to clarify the meaning of the Latin or to align
                > it to a more critical Greek text). It's definitely not a new
                > Vulgate-lexicon Latin translation from the Greek of any edition,
                > NA/UBS or other.
                >
                > John
                >
                >
                > --
                > John McChesney-Young ** Berkeley, California, U.S.A.
                > JMcCYoung~at~gmail.com ** http://twitter.com/jmccyoung
                >
              • Daniel Buck
                John, inasmuch as the editors of the NV specifically said it was merely a revision of the Vulgate rather than a translation into the Vulgate lexicon of the UBS
                Message 7 of 10 , Dec 5, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  John, inasmuch as the editors of the NV specifically said it was merely a revision of the Vulgate rather than a translation into the Vulgate lexicon of the UBS Greek text, I was wrong to state otherwise. However, there is no meaningful difference between a translation into Vulgar Latin of the UBS Greek text, and an extensive revision of the Vulgate to bring it into exact compliance with the UBS Greek text. 

                  In the same way, The Revised Version of the English Bible was, as its publishers claimed, "BEING THE VERSION SET FORTH A.D. 1611 COMPARED WITH THE MOST ANCIENT AUTHORITIES AND REVISED A.D. 1881-1885," but was in fact indistinguishable from a translation of the Greek text agreed upon by a majority of the Committee (overwhelmingly, but not always, the Westcott-Hort text before them), dressed in the archaic vocabulary of the KJV. Except in this case--in an 'enlightened' approach to Greek translation--they substantially revised the English as well; more so even than did the original KJV editors in their paradoxical claim of it being "newly translated out of the originall tongues, and with the former tranflations diligently compared and reuised."

                  I stand corrected, insofar as I couched my description of the problem in a way that conveyed the wrong impression of how the revision was done. But in the end, the result is the same.
                   
                  Daniel Buck

                  From: John McChesney-Young <jmccyoung@...>
                  To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Saturday, December 3, 2011 9:32 PM
                  Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Nova Vulgata in Mark 15:23

                   
                  On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Daniel Buck <bucksburg@...> wrote in part:

                  > The GBS Nova Vulgata is not a Vulgate edition in any meaningful sense; it is a Latin translation of the UBS Greek text, conformed to the lexicon of the Vulgate.

                  I'm sorry, but the latter statement contradicts the official statement
                  of its origin. It's a revision of Jerome's Vulgate with corrections in
                  the direction of modern critical editions.

                  From "Scripturarum Thesaurus," which prefaces the _Nova Vulgata_:

                  "In realizing this revision, 'the old text of the Vulgate edition was
                  taken into consideration word for word, namely, whenever the original
                  texts are accurately rendered, such as they are found in modern
                  critical editions; however the text was prudently improved, whenever
                  it departs from them or interprets them less correctly. For this
                  reason Christian biblical Latinity was used so that a just evaluation
                  of tradition might be properly combined with the legitimate demands of
                  critical science prevailing in these times.' (cf. Allocution of Paul
                  VI, 23 December 1966; AAS vol. LIX, 1967, pp. 53 ff.)"

                  http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19790425_scripturarum-thesaurus_en.html

                  See also this article from _CBQ_:

                  http://cba.cua.edu/clifnv.cfm

                  Whether it's an edition of the Vulgate in "any meaningful sense"
                  depends on the meaning of "meaningful," I suppose.

                  If you compare the text of the Nova and Clementine Vulgates, you'll
                  find very few differences (as in, primarily minor changes every five
                  or ten verses, either to clarify the meaning of the Latin or to align
                  it to a more critical Greek text). It's definitely not a new
                  Vulgate-lexicon Latin translation from the Greek of any edition,
                  NA/UBS or other.

                  John

                  --
                  John McChesney-Young ** Berkeley, California, U.S.A.
                  JMcCYoung~at~gmail.com ** http://twitter.com/jmccyoung


                • TeunisV
                  http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_praenotanda_lt.html NOVUM TESTAMENTUM EVANGELIORUM editioni propositum est, ut versio
                  Message 8 of 10 , Dec 6, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_praenotanda_lt.html


                    NOVUM TESTAMENTUM

                    EVANGELIORUM editioni propositum est, ut versio Latina Vulgatae, quae dicitur, Scripturae Sacrae ad textum Graecum, ut hodie critica arte est restitutus, quam maxime conformaretur. Quemadmodum olim s. Hieronymus, Damasi Papae mandato, Latinum Evangeliorum textum recognovit et emendavit secundum codices Graecos, qui essent antiquissimi ac dignissimi fide, ita nunc Pontificia Commissio pro Nova Vulgata Sacrorum Bibliorum editione textum ab eodem s. Hieronymo retractatum, ad reperta artis textus critice pervidendi, quae nunc obtinet, accommodavit.

                    Ut norma et archetypus sumptus est textus Graecus Novi Testamenti editus, inde ab anno 1966 cura nonnullarum Societatum biblicarum, a Conrado Aland, M. Black, C. Martini, B. Metzger, A. Wickgren, qui nostris temporibus, communi consensione, summam habet auctoritatem.
                    Ipse vero, qui recognitus est, textus Latinus continetur Bibliis Sacris iuxta Vulgatam Versionem estque anno 1969 a Sodalitate Biblica Virtembergensi, Stutgardiae sedem habente, foras datus, adiuvantibus B. Fischer, I. Gribomont, H.F.D. Sparks, W. Thiele et R. Weber; qui auctores expetierunt atque conisi sunt, ut ipsum exemplum s. Hieronymi nobis praeberent.

                    In quo recognoscendo ea servata est methodus, ut textus Latinus cum Graeco, ex criticae artis praeceptis certo vel saltem probabili, quam maxime concineret; qua in re eo progressi sumus, ut quantum fieri posset, locutiones Graecas ad verbum exprimeremus, earum veluti imaginem efficientes, atque normam s. Hieronymi excederemus, qui saepe emendationibus abstinuit, ne legentium animos turbaret; ait enim ipse: Ne multum (evangelia) a lectionis Latinae consuetudine discreparent, ita calamo imperavimus ut, his tantum quae sensum videbantur mutare correctis, reliqua manere pateremur ut fuerant (Praef. ad papam Damasum).

                    Hoc autem modo conati sumus proprietates quoque, ad stilum cuiusque Evangelistae pertinentes, quam accuratissime exhibere atque nonnullas rationes sive historicas sive theologicas, quae in eodem textu inveniuntur, in sua luce collocare, non tamen peculiaria illa praecepta Latinitatis biblicae-christianae neglegentes, cuius indoles supra, ubi de Psalterio agitur, breviter est descripta.
                    In quem sermonem Latinum, ut notum est, non pauci recepti sunt et inserti Semitismi, quos quidem veluti certum thesaurum verborum locutionumque servavimus, nisi obscuritatem ingererent (e. g. " filii sponsi "); item curae fuit, ut idiotismi et quae usum populi proprium redolerent, retinerentur; tamen particulae quod, quia, quibus tantummodo illud hoti Graecorum prorsus recitativum, ut aiunt, et supervacaneum redditur, expungerentur.

                    In seligendis vero lectionibus, quae apud criticos in controversia versantur, editionem Conradi Aland eiusque sociorum sumus ex more secuti, si haec duo excipiuntur: cum enim lectio aliqua in textu Conradi Aland ut incerta (parenthesi interclusa), sed ut certa in Vulgata editione occurrebat, accepta est lectio eiusdem Vulgatae (e. g. Mc 1, 1); cum vero codices Vulgatae lectionem quandam non exhibebant, quam tamen Conradus Aland eiusque socii in suam editionem ut possibilem vel probabilem (parenthesi interclusam) induxerant, Vulgatam secuti sumus (e. g. Mc 15, 12) eo consilio, ut huius indoles quasi magni ponderis testis, ad textum quod attinet, servaretur.
                    Lectio vero Latina, quoties ab editione Conradi Aland discrepabat, in apparatu critico, quem vocant, posita est: a qua tamen norma defleximus in fine Evangelii secundum Marcum (16, 9-20), in loco quo de sudore sanguinis agitur (Lc 22, 43-44), in narratione de muliere adultera (Io 8, 1-11); in extrema tamen pagina annotatur locos eiusmodi a criticis in quaestionem esse vocatos. Ad eundem textum Latinum quod pertinet, propter stilum et ob practicas causas interdum adducti sumus ut locutionem quandam Vulgatae Xystinae-Clementinae, quae appellatur, diuturno usu probatam, locutioni editionis criticae Stutgardiensis praeferremus (veluti Mt 9, 38; Mc 4, 7; Lc 11, 28 etc.); item nonnullae lectiones propriae editionis Xystinae–Clementinae, in quibusdam codicibus propositae, sed editione sive Conradi Aland sive Vulgatae Stutgardiensis reiectae, in apparatum criticum ut notatione dignae sunt relatae (e. g. Mt 23, 14; Lc 9, 55–56).
                    Quod ad nomina et scribendi attinet rationem, formam secuti sumus, quae esset usitatissima et nostra aetate potissimum vigeret.

                    Legentes cum gaudio accipient sive editionem criticam textus Graeci Novi Testamenti a Conrado Aland eiusque sociis confectam, sive textum Vulgatae Stutgardiensis, sive retractationem criticam eiusdem, a Pontificia Commissione pro Nova Vulgata Sacrorum Bibliorum editione peractam, opus fuisse socium idque oecumenicum virorum hac in re peritorum.

                    Ad ACTUS APOSTOLORUM quod attinet, dum Graecitas emendatiore forma peracta est, Latinitas versionis Vulgatae duriore stilo ab ignoto nobis auctore confecta est. Cuius libri cum textualis retractatio opera s. Hieronymi non haberetur, eo factus est recensionis labor magis necessarius et arduus.
                    Ad hanc quoque recognitionem efficiendam, textum Graecum qui a C. Aland eiusque sociis critice apparatus est, tamquam archetypum sumpsimus; pro textu vero Latino princeps exemplar nobis fuit critica editio Vulgatae Stutgardiae anno 1969 prolata.

                    EPISTULARUM tum S. PAULI tum CATHOLICARUM textus Latinus est prorsus eadem ratione ac via recognitus, quibus Evangelia; idque eo consilio ut cum exemplari Graeco, criticae artis ope statuto, quam maxime congrueret atque concineret.
                    Cum tamen hanc N. T. partem, ut plerique docti censent nosque ipsi experti sumus, beatus Hieronymus non recensuerit — quae quidem est una e causis cur textus Epistularum N. T. alicubi obscurus et perplexus appareat — idcirco nobis textus Latinus Vulgatus satis corrigendus fuit, quem et emendavimus et immutavimus quoties aut critica ratio textus, aut philologia, aut exegesis poscerent.
                    Qua in re simul ea studiosius considerata sunt, quae Latini codices et antiquorum scriptorum christianorum, in primisque Hieronymi commentationes tradiderunt, simul etiam iis scientiae subsidiis adhibitis, quae haec nostra intulit aetas; ut non solum emendationes criticae artis fundamento niterentur, sed etiam cum illa lingua ac genere dicendi apte cohaererent, quae antiquae Ecclesiae propria sunt.
                    Textus Graecus libri APOCALYPSIS, ut compertum est, Hebraismis et soloecismis redundat; eius autem Latina versio, diligenter sane, licet mendose aliquando, peracta est, cum et elocutionem emendare et verborum flexionem efficere conaretur, ut primigenius textus in recto vividoque Latino sermone redderetur. Etiam huius libri cum textualis retractatio opera s. Hieronymi non haberetur, eo factus est recensionis labor magis necessarius et arduus.


                    > Conclusion: The Nova Vulgata is a modern artefact.
                    > Do not use this text for textcritical work.
                    > Teunis van lopik
                    >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.