Four Latin Vulgate Bibles Compared
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 лип 2024
- These are the best Latin bibles I've found in print:
Stuttgart Vulgate: www.amazon.com/Biblia-Sacra-V...
Colunga-Turrado Clementine Vulgate: www.amazon.com/Biblia-Vulgata...
Loreto Diglot Clementine/Douay-Rheims-Challoner: loretopubs.org/the-clementine...
Nova Vulgata: www.vaticanum.com/en/biblioru...
00:00 Intro
00:22 Stuttgart Vulgate
08:37 Colunga-Turrado Clementine Vulgate
16:33 Loreto Diglot Clementine/Douay-Rheims-Challoner
20:18 Nova Vulgata
Thank you for this thoughtful review. Once upon a time I regularly read the Clementine edition, but I lost it in a huricane and have never replaced it. You have convinced me, I think, to choose the Stuttgart verion.
This version is known as the 'Stuttgart Vulgate' because it is printed and published by the German Bible Society, which is based in Stuttgart, Germany.
Great review.
Thank you! I just bought the green one off of Amazon; it seems like the best one for academic purposes.
A great review that dives deep into the details of these editions while remaining balanced and fair to both the merits and deficiencies of each. One feature of the Colunga-Turrado edition that was not mentioned: It contains two versions of the Psalms- The Gallican Psalms and the Psalms of Pope Pius XII (also called the "Pian" or "Bea" version)
I have the Green covered Vulgate similar to yours but mine is more the size of the Red one you pictured. Mine is the fourth edition printed around 1995/1995.
Colunga-Turrado is the Vulgate I use for everyday purposes. But the arrangement of the text in the Stuttgart Vulgate, in sense lines, is really admirable. It is a great pity that there is no handy one-volume edition of the 1979 Vulgate.
Yes, it is a great cross-reference Bible with book summaries, section heading, and oulines. The print is clear. It's convenient size makes it a Bible for the office and road. There is practically no ghosting of the print, making for an enjoyable reading experience.
Wonderful video - very helpful. I have the Stuttgart and the Loreto NT. I also have the Dumbarton Oaks 6 (really 7) vol edition. Any thoughts on that one?
The Dumbarton Oaks looks like a beautiful set. I think they use the Clementine text for the Latin. 6 or 7 volumes is bulkier than I would like.
@@clarkgrubb8495 Yes, definitely bulky. They are nicely printed and bound, though, and the text is very readable.
Anyone have thoughts on the Baronius Press edition, as far as being a good edition just for someone wanting to read the Vulgate?
Baronius Press edition is a very good edition, its thicker than other versions of vulgate.
Thank you for your thoughtful review that is thankfully free from acerbic, polemical static noise that usually accompanies these discussions. In my experience, ideology and ecclesiological polity determine what Vulgata one is to use for religious purposes. For example, the Loreto edition was made by and for traditionalists and other right-wing extremists who hail the Clementine Vulgate as inherently superior to any other edition. The Nova Vulgata is the official text of the present day Roman Catholic Church and, as a product of the Second Vatican Council, is much maligned by traditionalists. In my own life, when I was a traditionalist I did the same but when I reconciled with the Church I came to accept and love the Nova Vulgata, which is the edition I use for study, prayer and leisure.
Also, the Church Latin Publishing Company had reprographically printed a beautiful edition of the Clementine Vulgate published in 1901 by Desclée. It is an exquisite edition with stunning illustrations and amazing font. That would be my go-to edition for the Clenentine Vulgate.
im looking for one with 1 and 2 esdras any ideas?
you forgot to mention the Piana version of the Psalms in the Collunga-Turrado edition of the Clementine Vulgate, that they printed alongside Jerome's Gallican Psalter
17:21 How close is the Douay-Rheims to the Latin?
Very close, it's almost literal. But this is the Challoner version, which incorporates some of the KJV readings.
I have that small green one that came in a collection with that Greek new testament, the septuaginta and the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, and from the Latin vulgate to Portuguese I have 2 editions of the translation by Father Matos Soares, the original, from 1927-32, 100% from the Latin, and a newer one, from 1956, in which he made a few corrections based on the Hebrew and Greek because of that Papal bull asking for translations from the original languages. In PDF I have one by father Figueiredo who translated it 100% from the Vulgare in the 18th century
Ótimas traduções
St Benedict Press also prints the Douay.
Aren't there a few editions of the English D-Rheims Bible? How can I find a list of how these editions differ from each other?
Baronius Press is the only current publisher of the Douay Rheims that I am aware of. If you are open to a used copy, you can look for editions by Tan Publishing or (even older) Kennedy & Sons. They should all have basically the same text and the commentary by Challoner.
@@clarkgrubb8495 Benedict Press, Loreto Press also publish the DRB.
Check out the CPDV bible, it's an independent translation of the Latin into English
@@jaqian Is it Catholic?
@@Shlomayo Exactly, never use a Bible that is not officially approved.
Are there other versions available? Which do you like the best?
People have mentioned some other versions in the comments. I think I like the Stuttgart Vulgate the best.
I need to find one that has 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras any ideas? they are canon because we actually use them during the mass. Example is Whit Tuesday in my Missal Page 605 uses 2 Esdras as a mass reading, since we only use Canon in the Mass that makes them Canon. I NEED it, I NEED one that possibly has the Greek and/or Latin in addition to the English
All of the Vulgates reviewed in the video have those. Sometimes they are called Esdras and Nehemias, and sometimes they are combined into a single book called Esdras. The Loreto has both the English and the Latin. If you want the Greek, there is an English/Greek diglot of the Septuagint by Brenton ISBN 0913573442.
@@clarkgrubb8495 No i mean the Apocrypha 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras
called 3 and 4th esdras
PRAEFATIO AD LECTOREM
by Clement added them he even mentions the canon of Jerome and Trent and says that they are for the Students of the Future. They also uses 3 and 4th esdras in the Mass canon, making it Legally Canonical.
@@sleepystar1638 I don't have a Latin bible with those. The Orthodox Study Bible ISBN 0718003594 has a 1 Ezra and 2 Ezra in addition to Nehemiah. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha ISBN 1598564897 has something it calls the Fourth Book of Ezra. Those are both English translations.
My main issue with the Nova Vulgata is if it is going to deviate from St. Jerome's original (the Latin text tradition) in favour of the Greek texts, then why not just use the Greek at that point? If the Greek texts we have now are better than what St. Jerome had access to, why not just use the Bible in Greek like the Nestle-Alland NT? Why have any Latin at all, aside from the Psalter?
Is there an edition of The Vulgate that is a Latin-English Interlinear?
I see an interlinear New Testament on Lulu but I don't know how nice it is:
www.lulu.com/shop/in-rebus/interlinear-latin-english-new-testament/paperback/product-11772478.html
@@clarkgrubb8495 Thanks for checking:-)... I did see a variety of Latin interlinears out there, but none are the complete Vulgate. Curious, one would think that would be a coveted volume...
@@clarkgrubb8495 I do have the "Biblia Sacra" Vulgate volume, a lovely bound tome with the English and Latin side by side, but not interlinear...
I have the same Colunga-Turrado edition. It has many typos, but this one was impressive. John 17:15 should read thus, “Non rogo ut tollas eos de mundo, sed ut serves eos a malo.” My edition reads, “Non rogo ut tollas eos a malo.”
I just want to clarify, isn't it pronounced in the Latin "vul-ga-te" with three syllables where the final e is pronounced? I have been saying it this way and I would like to correct myself if I've improperly said it all these years.
In Ecclesiastical Latin yes, though not so sure it would be quite the same in Classical Latin. Though I think an important caveat is that when we refer to this in English (as is done in this video), we are calling it by the English word vulgate, as it was adopted into and pronounced in this language rather than its Latin name.
The Latin was "vulgata"
28:52 it's more than one word it's wa- "-ו" so "and", koll- "-כל" so "all-", and "habb-hēmāh" "הַבְּהֵמָה" so isolated, definite, singular, of "behemah"/"בהמה" "cattle, behemoth". This text variant is found in this form in the Samaritan Pentateuch, and in translation in the Septuagint, the Peshitta, and well the Vulgate. This makes this an extremely strong variant given this agreement of indepentent sources (Samaritan [and Greek-speaking Jewish depending on your view of the Septuagint provenance] and Christian) which aren't the Masoretic text and predate it. So some Catholic Bible translations like the Einheitsübersetzug 2017 omitt this passage and others like the revised new jerusalem bible include it. In neither case do they cite arguments for or against the addition (EÜ is obvious and not really necessary they follow the Masoretic text and disregard the variant) so the Nova Vulgata translators did a good job here though frankly they could have just referenced the page 12 of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia where it is in the footnotes and avoided the confusion.
Martin Luther originally translated this passage according to the Septuagint (as he didn't have the Samaratian Torah) and Luther 2017 still keeps cattle in because it's such a strong variant this frankly is the correct decision and it is nice to see that the Nova Vulgata defends the strengths of the Old Vulgate.
Makes sense. Thanks for sharing.
What about verses found in the old Vulgate dropped in the Nova Vulgata?
@@Shlomayo That’s a great question and to understand it we need to take a step back and look at what we mean by “the Vulgate”. Historically we know Saint Jerome translated a Bible and called it that, so the first question is: do we have that? And the answer is no, there is not a single surviving manuscript of a text we can entirely and without a doubt attribute to Jerome. Thus when we use “Vulgata” we mean a tradition of manuscripts related to this text by Jerome, these differ quite greatly, not just in minute details but also in the broad strokes, you will find Vulgate copies with the Gospel of Nicodemus in there, 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras etc. pp. Now a pressing question should be: if these differ so much how do we know what Jerome’s Vulgata looked like? And the answer is critical study, there always were attempts to figure it out by some but a real system started to develop in the 13th century with so called “correctories” text looking at different copies of the Vulgata and comparing them, identifying more likely variants. These correctories were meant for scribes and dealt with lots of things, from small grammar adjustments to word choices, to larger things like verse order and obviously also keeping entire extra-canonical books out of the Bible. These efforts led to a revolution by 1528 when Robert Estienne published the first critical edition of the Vulgata by comparing these correctories, by 1540 this work was in its 4th edition comparing 16 text and from there to today’s Stuttgart Vulgate is essentially a straight line of more and more manuscripts becoming available, the field of critical text studies advancing and so on, hence why today you can find in the Stuttgart Vulgate the most like version of Jerome’s original text and the most important variants. The Church however has ever since taken a different path, in 1546 it decreed Jerome’s vulgate as the typical (official) Bible of the Latin Church but did not explain which version. Following 44 tumultuous years the Sixtine Vulgate came out and was meant to be the Church’s Vulgate, it wasn’t as radical as some of the critical editions but still was quite radical and really took in the insights from the critical editions, taking out 2.5 verses in the book of numbers and relegating lots of books associated with the Vulgate into a extra-canonical appendix. 2 years later the Clementine Vulgate followed and tried to improve the Latin of the text with less care towards what Jerome probably wrote.
To recap so far until 1592 the Vulgate tradition has seen entire books come and go, verses be dropped and phrases readjusted. This turbulent activity now ceases, with the Counterreformation stability was stressed and changes to the Vulgate unwanted, meanwhile science marched on, textual studies developed further, better and better critical editions of the Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts appeared. Which brings us to the 1960s and the Nova Vulgata. It isn’t just a copy of Jerome’s most likely text which would just be like a copy of the Stuttgart Vulgate, but a genuine attempt to continue the Vulgate tradition up to this point. Take the verse numbers in your Bible today, they too were developed by Robert Estienne but not on the Latin text. With this tradition in mind the Church went on to create a Vulgate based on the most reliable reconstructed text in the original languages but with respect for Jerome’s original edition, where he made errors they looked for Latin Church fathers who translated correctly, they improved the Latin just as the Clementine Vulgate did. In those respects it bridges 500 years of inactivity with 1500 years of activity, it treats the Vulgata tradition like Jerome treated the Vetus Latina, it takes an almost identical approach to critical studies as the Sixtine Vulgate. The problem is, for 500 years people have been told “this is the book, it’s perfect the way it is, don’t change it” this attitude of course stands in contrast with the history of the Vulgate but its proponents do not care. The Nova Vulgata is the most true Vulgate in terms of its approach to the ancient texts (find the best manuscripts, translate from the original languages) it’s the most rigorous and linguistically correct copy of the text but it does not and cannot account for half a millennium of telling people a stagnant text is more reliable. The problem is, these people are not honest with themselves, the copy they see as THE Vulgate usually is the Clementine Vulgate, that’s a 16th century 2nd edition text also based on critical study, it didn’t drop from the heavens. Would they see the history prior to it they would grow to see the Nova Vulgata for what it is: the most excellent, the most skillful, and the most reliable Latin translation of the Bible there is and ever was.
@@augustinusaurelius4634 Thank you very much for your very thorough response, and my sincere apologies for the late reply. May I ask if you can suggest some literature on the Nova Vulgata? And what would be the most accurate English translation of the Nova Vulgata?
I guess, my difficulty with the Tridentine statement is the "all parts" bit, which I understand to mean that all verses then used would be deemed canonical. But t'is not the first time I misunderstand Church jargon.
Also since you know the EÜ: is there any more accurate translation of the Bible in the German language (Catholic Bible)?
Why are these Latin fonts so small? My poor old eyes just can't take it for more than a few minutes at a time.
You can read it online if need be, it will show the same text, you'll just be missing out on the footnotes of different manuscripts
After all this, I am still not sure which is the best/better translation
I've studied all three. The _Nova Vulgata_ is easily the most accurate translation. The Stuttgart represents St Jerome's work most accurately and will appeal particularly to protestants. But Jerome's version contains many flaws, and the Clementine (which will appeal more to Catholics) doesn't really correct these in a scholarly revision; it largely limits itself to repunctuating the Latin and smoothing it out a little for liturgical purposes.
That said, the _Nova Vulgata_ is disfavoured by most for a variety of reasons: its novelty factor, the fact that it received its final authorisation by Vatican II 'popes' (actually antipopes), and the fact that there is as yet no accompanying English translation (something which I hope to remedy within a few years).
Even the Vatican II sect (the masonic counterfeit of the Catholic Church), whose Antipope John Paull II actually promulgated the _Nova Vulgata,_ have little use for it, as they despise the language of the Church, and scarcely any of their 'priests' know even the basics of Latin!
@@timotheospetros Thank you for your thoughts.
@@timotheospetrosI’m a traditional Catholic. I agree with most of your sentiments concerning the state of The Church. But all that aside, are you recommending the Nova Vulgata despite it being looked upon as unfavorable by most traditionalists? I’m shopping for a Latin Bible and after comparing different Latin Bible options, I feel most drawn to Nova Vulgata.
I’d love to hear more about its accuracy to decide if it’s right latin Bible for my personal prayer life.
@@laughalongbooks Yes. Despite it sticking so rigorously to the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Critical Edition of the New Testament, overall it's clearly the most accurate rendition of the Bible in Latin to date. It corrects thousands of translation inaccuracies/errors made by St Jerome, as per the requirements of Popes St Pius X and Pius XII. Any further revision of the Latin Bible must surely use it as its basis. In my translation work I show the Nova Vulgata and Clementine texts side by side and highlight all the differences, so that readers can decide for themselves which text is generally superior. In the vast majority of cases it is self-evidently the Nova Vulgata.
Why does the Nova Vulgata omit from Luke 1:28: “Benedicta tu in mulieribus?”
Not sure but it doesn't look like any of the Greek manuscripts mention women in 1:28.
Why do you say that the OT of Lutherbibel was translated from the Vulgate? I've always been under the impression, and Wikipedia at least agrees with me, that he (/they) translated straight from the Hebrew as they did from Greek. In fact that is what made Lutherbibel so special, since previous German translations were through Latin.
I think you are right. Well, they had access to the Hebrew at least. It is hard to be sure they translated straight from the Hebrew in all cases. In any case, I removed my comment from the video description.
I believe you confused the Luther Bible with the Tyndale Bible/Great Bible, which had an OT (aside from the pentateuch) translated from the Vulgate@@clarkgrubb8495
How did you get a copy of this Nova Vulgata?
vaticanum.com had them for sale back in 2022.
Thank you. I checked and it is listed as sold out. There is a green Minor edition but still looking into it but it looks different than all the others ones shown here.
@@yauchinlam2276 According to an email response to an inquiry I sent, it is the exact same text, just a smaller book. I don't know the exact dimensions but I would assume it's something more approximate to the Stuttgart.
@@marienritter1856 Ah thank you so much. I actually have the copy now of it and yes it is exact same type with minor differences (make sense on minor edition) and smaller size.
I'd love to fork out for the loreto version but the fact it switches the columns between volumes would irritate the life out of me!
i love you😊
As an american spaniard I find it funny that when you're reading latin your pronunciation is pretty good quite spot on but when you read the spanish names and university of salamanca and such you revert back to your anglicised pronunciation lol 😂😂😂