[textualcriticism] Nova Vulgata - critical analysis by Ron Conte
- Hi Folks,
> Jeff Cate wrote:
> That's certainly an interesting collection of variants. The one inMark 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).
> Daniel Bucksense; 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:
> The GBS Nova Vulgata is not a Vulgate edition in any meaningful
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.
> the latter statement contradicts the official statement of itsorigin. It's a revision of Jerome's Vulgate with corrections in the direction of modern critical editions.
> From "Scripturarum Thesaurus," which prefaces the _NovaVulgata_:
> "In realizing this revision, 'the old text of the Vulgateedition 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_:
Please note that this second article is taking a position against any special authority of the Nova Vulgata, even for translators of the RCC liturgy.
The Authority of the Nova Vulgata: A Note on A Recent Roman Document
Richard J. Clifford, S.J. - Weston Jesuit School of Theology - Cambridge, MA 02138
Generally, this authority issue is a debate in Catholic circles.
> John McChesney-Young
> Whether it's an edition of the Vulgate in "any meaningfulsense" 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.
> Teunisk van lopiktext for textcritical work.
> Conclusion: The Nova Vulgata is a modern artefact. Do not use this
Let me point out that the Nova Vulgata has never been translated into English, which practically makes it very different than the Vulgate versions in use for reading. The RCC imprimatur is now placed on versions from either the traditional Vulgate text or the modern versions like the NRSV with the Apocrypha. (Never any Received Text versions.)
One Latin Bible translator. Ron Conte, has done some of the actual textual comparison:
The Nova Vulgata NT drops hundreds of words from the NT that are found in the Latin Scriptural tradition, and also found in the Greek Majority Text and Textus Receptus.
my critical analysis of the Nova Vulgata unfortunately shows that the NV Gospel of Matthew, and probably the rest of the New Testasment, is mainly based on the United Bible Societies Greek text, and not on the Clementine Vulgate or the Latin scriptural tradition, even though the NV is in Latin. The editors of the NV chose to alter the Latin text, in small details as well as important points, to conform to the UBS Greek text, which is mainly the work of Protestant scholars. That text omits many words and phrases from the Bible, and more than a few verses, on the grounds of scholarship, and so does the Nova Vulgata ... The NV drops over 1700 words from the New Testament. What is the basis for omitting these words? The sole basis is that a select group of scholars from the Protestant 'United Bible Societies' (UBS) decided to omit those words from their critical text of the New Testament in Greek. ...The NV ignores the Latin text of the Clementine Vulgate. The NV is basically the Fischer Stuttgart Latin text, prepared by the Protestant 'German Bible Society', adjusted to agree in almost every detail with the Greek UBS text.
Problems with the Nova Vulgata in the Gospel of Matthew
Ronald L. Conte Jr. (June 18, 2010)
The Gospel of Mathew in Latin
a line-by-line collation of the Clementine Vulgate, Nova Vulgata, and Stuttgart Vulgate
Ron Conte writes from an RCC perspective, seeing the UBS as text as "Protestant". In a sense, this is the flip-side of the historic textual theories that see the Critical Texts as an ecumenical attempt Jesuit-inspired. And this can also be compared to the historic RCC position that saw the use of the Westcott-Hort text for the Revision could signal the "death-knell of Protestantism" (Dublin Review, 1881, The Revision of the New Testament, p 143). This was given as an echo of an earlier concern expressed by Fox Maule-Ramsay (Lord Panmure).