Talk:Vulgate/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Nova Vulgata

Dampinograaf upgraded the Nova Vulgata division from a secondary level to the primary level. He defended his edit here.

I responded here. I have received no further communication from him. I purpose to restore Nova Vulgata to a secondary division. Rwflammang (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I really think it would make sense to move that section off to a separate article entirely, since it's technically a new translation into Latin rather than a new iteration of the historical Vulgate. Any thoughts? AndrewNJ (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It's more of a revision than a whole new translation, That's certainly true of the New Testament, psalter, and Pentateuch. I haven't read much of the rest. It needs to be described at least somewhat in this article. Rwflammang (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Versio Vulgata

"the name versio vulgata, which means "the published translation". Doesn'tversio vulgata actually mean "the common version" or "the version in the common tongue" --Wetman (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No. While the term vulgata can mean "common" in the sense of debased or prostituted, when it applies to information it means "published" or "widely known". It does not refer to the language of publication. See Perseus for full details.

In particular we know that, in the case of the Vulgate, vulgata does not refer to the Latin language for two reasons. (1) In the 4th century, the versio vulgata is what Latin speakers called the Greek Septuagint. (2) The first recorded instance of the Vulgate being called the versio vulgata was in the 13th century, when Latin was no longer a vernacular. See the reference (number 4, currently) to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia for details. Rwflammang (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oustanding article

Congratulations to all involved with this article. It is full of excellent, reliable content, thank you. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Vulgate manuscripts

I can't quite figure out how to edit the hidable table labelled "Vulgate manuscripts". {{Vulgate manuscripts}} Anyone have any pointers? Rwflammang (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, didn't want to clutter the article with more table formatting. Just follow this link Template:Vulgate manuscripts. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you were right not to clutter the article; I just couldn't find the template. Thanks for showing me. Now I see that it is in the Template: namespace, which makes sense, and it explains why I couldn't find it. I wasn't looking in the right place :) Rwflammang (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. I think we face issues with the information, though. The table is incomplete. If expanded in full it would crowd the article. I've set up List of New Testament Latin manuscripts, which is also incomplete, but is probably a better example of what we can do. I think it would be ideal to have Vetus Latina and Vulgate noted in a sortable column. That has issues, though, because the scholars think parts of mss are VL and others Vulgate ... not for all mss, but for some of them. I'm not too concerned about long term presentation, I'm sure people will work that out. Just now, I'd like to get the info onto Wiki. Next job will be getting text into Wikisource! Jerome would have loved Wiki. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have found out how to get this working now; but the contents are still an issue. In mny view we do need a listing of the manuscripts that are primary sources for Vulgate books in the Stuttgart edition. Which this isn't; we are missing (for instance) Codex Theodulphianus, the Ottobonianus octateuch, and Harley 1775. But if the content is that specific, maybe shouldn't be a template? TomHennell (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Greek Vulgate??

I see the logic of this edit, but the term "Greek Vulgate" has been commonly used as a synonym of Textus Receptus, and is so applied in a footnote to that Wikipedia article. How do Greeks biblical scholars categorise their text of the Bible, as distinct from the Greek text which underlies the Vulgate? TomHennell (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good question, and I'm not sure of the best way to answer it. Let me just point out that when I call the Latin Vulgate the *counterpart* to the Greek Vulgate, I do not mean that it is a *translation* of the Greek Vulgate. It famously is not, as Jerome emphasized in his famous prologues. Of course, in those prologues, he is mostly talking about the Old Testament, specifically the LXX. It seems that these days, the term "Greek Vulgate" is not used so much, and often when it is used, it is used specifically to mean the New Testament. But, if we want to talk about the origin of the name "Latin Vulgate", it is hard to not mention the "Greek Vulgate", since the Latin Vulgate basically stole its name from the standard Greek Bible used in the Church. Use of the term Vulgate to describe the Greek Bible predates the publication of the Textus Receptus by centuries.

Perhaps the phrase where "counterpart" is used can be re-worded to better make this point. I could definitely use some suggestions, as my constant tweaking of this minor parenthetical note makes clear. Rwflammang (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem to me is that the beginning of the para asserts that the term "Vulgata" was used originally of the Septuagint - by which, I presume, is specfically meant the Greek Old Testament texts witnessed in the 4th/5th Century pandects; Alexandrinus, Vaticanus etc; and by implication excludes the Greek New Testament. So it appears confusing in the final sentance to use the term "Greek Vulgate" to refer to the whole Greek Bible. Might not the second reference be better changed to "the Greek Bible as established in the 4th Century"? TomHennell (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That certainly is a problem, and I think it is a problem because it is wrong. I think the Latin word vulgata referred to the entire Greek Bible, New as well as Old Testament. Would replacing the word "Septuagint" with "Greek Bible" be enough to remove the confusion? Currently Greek Bible is just a redirect to Greek Vulgate, but that can be changed easily enough and a new stub article can be created. Rwflammang (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

To answer you question: I think your proposed change is fine apart from the mention of the 4th century. The Latin Vulgate picked up its name in the 13th century. I do not know the exact context in which the new name was first used by Roger Bacon (if anyone can point me to the text, I'd appreciate it), but I imagine that the latina adjective in latina vulgata was to contrast it to the 13th century Greek Vulgate, not the 4th century Greek Bible. Rwflammang (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

New Scholarly Results

The following part edited by Consputus seems problematic to me:

This new translation of the Old Testament was labelled by him as “iuxta Hebraeos” (i. e. “close to the Hebrews”, “immediately following the Hebrews”). This label has led to the belief that Jerome's new Latin translation was the first to be derived directly from the Hebrew Tanakh, rather than the Greek Septuagint. However, in the light of modern scholarship, this view has become dubious. P. Nautin comes to the conclusion that Jerome's Hebrew knowledge was provably very poor and that his “iuxta Hebraeos” translation of the Old Testament was still made on the basis of a Hexaplar Greek text, but this time Jerome could have used a Hexapla which also contained the different variants of other Greek translations as marginal notes.

I see three issues with it.

1. I have never heard the term juxta Hebraeos used to refer to the Old Testament. I have only ever heard it used to refer to Jerome's 3rd translation of the Psalms, which translation was not ultimately used in the Vulgate. This throws the meaning of the rest of the paragraph into doubt. Does the author mean the the third translation of Psalms was made from Hexaplar Greek, or does he mean that all the protocanonical books were translated from the Hexapla?

2. The edit implies that Nautin's work is the latest and greatest in the field, but this is not so apparent to me. Nautin's work has been cited by Adam Kamesar in 1993 in his book Jerome, Greek Scholarship, and the Hebrew Bible: A Study of the Quaestiones Hebraicae in Genesim where he notes (chapter 5) that Jerome's knowledge of Hebrew seems to exceed that of the exegetes whose work he used. While Jerome relied on Greek exegetical material to a great extent, that fact says nothing per se about his competence in Hebrew. It seems to me that the question of his competence has not been settled.

3. The description of "a Hexapla which also contained the different variants of other Greek translations as marginal notes" also seems problematic to me. The Hexapla contained 4 different Greek translations in parallel columns; these translations were "variants", but they were not marginal. Certainly Jerome praised the Aquiline text as being particularly accurate. But his use of this text says nothing about his expertise in Hebrew one way or another.

In sum, it seems to me that Nautin's results (assuming they are his results, I have not read his article) are not conclusive.

Rwflammang (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rwflammang! First, I don't have objections to your latest revision of the article so I don't see any reason to argue. Secondly, I will give you my own English translation of the passage in question from Nautin's German article. Perhaps then things will become clearer. Nautin uses the designation iuxta Hebraeos clearly referring to the complete second/new translation of the Old Testament by Jerome. Besides, Nautin's argumentation never was as simple as to say that the mere fact that Jerome used Greek translations shows a lack of Hebrew competence. But Nautin argues that Jerome's Hebrew explanations are fantastic (abstruse) unless borrowed from sources. But please read by yourself,

2.3 The translation of the Old Testament “following the Hebrew”.

Later, Jerome gradually published an almost complete translation of the Old Testament which was allegedly translated from the Hebrew text (see “Bibelübersetzungen” I.3.2f). However, it can be proved that he hardly knew that language. Whenever he quotes in his commentaries or his other works the transcribed Hebrew text – which he often does – or makes comments about the Hebrew language, he owes the corresponding information to his sources (Origenes, Eusebius, perhaps also Acacius of Caesarea); but as soon as he goes away from the sources, all becomes pure invention.

A typical example of that is ep. 20, where the meaning of the word Hosanna in Ps. 117 (118).25 is explained. This epistle includes two kinds of remarks. The one kind is from an author who had the text of the Psalms before his eyes and was able to transcribe the Hebrew letters correctly. The other remarks were added by someone who, although he did not have a Hebrew Bible at hand, wanted to replenish the work of the first author and in doing so used a completely exotic orthography. The first remarks are taken from Jerome’s source (in this case Origenes), the other remarks are Jerome’s own contribution.

In other writings, Jerome liked to refer to Jewish scholars who had given him some information about the Hebrew text or had taught him the Hebrew language – but as has already been pointed out by Montfaucon and Bardy, in those passages whose sources are known Jerome simply transferred the reports of Origenes or Eusebius resp. to himself.

Therefore, Jerome was hardly able to translate the Bible from Hebrew or even only to verify an already existing translation on the basis of the Hebrew text. His iuxta hebraeos-edition of the Old Testament was also made on the basis of a Hexaplar Septuagint. In doing so, he perhaps used a new edition with marginal notes, which contained the variants of the other Greek translations (like the so called Syrohexapla which is preserved in a Syrian translation; see Bibelübersetzungen I.4.1.2), maybe even a revised edition, because Origenes and Jerome were not the only scholars who wanted to restore the text of the Bible in its original form (cf. Eusebius, h.e. V 28.15-17, and after Jerome the recension of Theodulf).

From: Pierre Nautin, article Hieronymus, in: Theologische Realenzyklopädie, Vol. 15, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin - New York 1986, p. 304-315, here p. 309 (below) and 310 (above).

In any case, I think that this wikipedia article has substantially improved by our changes because the scholarly dispute about Jerome's sources (and Hebrew competence) is important and should not be supressed.

--Consputus (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Consputus, for making this information accessible to us. I too am pleased with the current wording in the article, and I would certainly hate to see Nautin's work suppressed. I also retract my claim that I have never seen juxta Hebraeos used in English to label anything besides the Psalter; that is no longer true. In the flurry of reading that your original edit inspired, I have come across one instance of this in the scholarly literature. Still, it seems to me to be an unusual label that we might best avoid, especially since it hardly seems to be a necessary distinction. Jerome left us with only one version of the 38 protocanonical books; we can call these "the Vulgate version" without any ambiguity, if you have no objection.

I am every bit as confused by Nautin's description of the juxta Hebraeos as having been made from the Hexaplar Septuagint as by your original edit. Surely the Hexaplar Greek of Aquila or Theodotion is meant? If Jerome had used the LXX, that fact would have been long apparent before the 20th century. I feel like I am not grasping what Nautin has said. Rwflammang (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"Hexaplar Septuagint" refers to the Septuagint as found in Origen's Hexapla; also in that volume were (we think) editions of Theodotian and Aquila (there were multiple Greek OTs in Origen's Hexapla, but only one is called the Septuagint).

tooMuchData

08:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheResearchPersona (talk • contribs)

Is this view of Pierre Nautin, that Jerome (surprisingly) didn't speak hebrew and thus, I assume, pieced together his translation from various existing translated sources, a majority view amoung scientists/scholers today? I, for one, finds the argumentation presented above extreamly in-conclusive, secondary and weak. I would suspect that one f.ex. could present hardcore textual evidence that f.ex. "this part is from source A; that part from source B etc." if Nautin is right. If Nautin is right, I am surprised that history doesn't recall the "fact" that the translator of the Vulgata didn't speak hebrew. I would suspect that the many contempoary adversaries of Jerome and his Vulgata would have used any oppertunity to point out such damaging information. --87.49.43.26 (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I see no evidence that Nautin's view was ever the majority view. It did, however, make a big splash in the 90s, and so it should be at least mentioned in the article. Nautin is certainly a respected scholar in the field, and his publications are read with interest, even if his opinion of Jerome's knowlege of Hebrew is not widely shared. In the last decade, various scholars have knocked some holes in his earlier arguments. Nevertheless, what is interesting is that it is hard to demonstrate conclusively the very widely held conviction that Jerome was an expert in Hebrew. If the article is written well, it will make that point without favoring Nautin's view, which can safely be described as a minority view. Rwflammang (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

OK and thanks. In St. Augustine of Hippo's Letter LXXI. (or as I read and understand it) Augustine warns Jerome against his latin vulgate based on Hebrew texts and not the Septuagint. Augustine based this warning on two things. 1) It could cause a split in the Church along greek and latin speaking lines. B) That augustine doubts that Jerome in everybody's oppinion could claim authority over the ancients (the septuagint) and a defense of his Vulgate would therefore constantly require his presence - a practical impossibility.

Therefore one could perhaps say that Augustine in a nice manner tells Jerome that other people had serious doubts about either his ability to get it "technically" right, or/and, which is the one I personally favour, that the ancient text (septuagint) would, in the mind of many, claim authority over what ever Jerome could translate or piece together from Hebrew sources and would results in endless discussion (which 1600 years onwards is the case!). In anycase Augustine, in my understanding, doesn't really say that Jerome can't read or is too incompetent to read Hebrew to do the job. He says, in my understanding, that Jerome lacks the authority to compete with the ancient septuagint. --Jomsviking (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit

I didn't actually edit anything, but I recommend someone with a little more experience than I clean up this page. Just looking at the Outline gives me a headache. I think the information about the prologues should be closer to the rest of the history of its writing and a couple of sections should be collapsed at least into the proper places of the outline if not condensed into one more clearly written section.Lepore64 (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. Here is my proposal.

• Eliminate the subsection on New Psalters. This is borderline off-topic and it is discussed in the Main article: Latin Psalters in detail.
• Incorporate the rest of the Psalters section into Jerome's Translation section.
• Incorportate the Prologues section into the Jerome's Translation section.
• Move the Vetus Latina section to below the Jerome's Translation section.
• Make the Jerome's Translation section a subsection of the Composition section.
• Move the "How to" paragraph at the top of the Later Editions section to a subsection at the bottom.

Rwflammang (talk) 15:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent Edit

For the recent edit, compare there, http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Vulgate&diff=261056402&oldid=260577439, I changed the text because the previous version may give the impression (to anyone unaware of the various names applied to the collections of books) that "Deuterocannon" and "Apocrypha" refer to separate, not the same, things.

tooMuchData

08:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheResearchPersona (talk • contribs)

Your concern is a good one, but I'm not sure that your edit really improved things. (On the other hand, it certainly did not make things worse!) The problem is that in some editions, e.g. the Stuttgart, the Deuterocanon and the Apocrypha are indeed separate things. In ancient times, the issue is radically different, but in that case use of the term "deuterocanonical" is anachronistic. In recent years, this issue has been addressed in several places in the article. The place you edited is a hold out from the bad old days. What shall we do about it? Rwflammang (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Say what?

"The Vulgate is an early Fifth Century version of the Bible in Latin, and largely the result of the labours of Jerome, who was commissioned by Pope Damasus I in 382"

Why is it a "fifth" century version and not a Fourth Century version - or did it really take him more than 18 years to finish? --IceHunter (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Describing anything as "Nth century" is problematic if it is near the turn of century. I propose dropping the term entirely. Let's use a descriptor in whose range the Vulgate squarely falls, say, "The Vulgate is a version of the Bible in Latin from Late Antiquity. It is largely the result of the labours of Jerome, who was commissioned by Pope Damasus I in 382". Rwflammang (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

OK so why are we not we changing it then. It still reads 4th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.167.80.171 (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Derivative Translations

In a recent edit, an editor replaced a poorly chosen title of a subsection (Translations based on the Vulgate) with a new title. The new title (Derivative Translations) is a stylistic improvement over the old, but it does not overcome my objection to the earlier one. These are translations of the Vulgate; they are direct translations of the Vulgate. They are only "derivative" or "based" insofar as they are thought of as translations of the Bible. But this is not an article on the Bible is it? It is an article on the Vulgate. Rwflammang (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Two translation sections

This article contains two sections, Jerome's Translation and Issues of Translation that basically repeats the same material in two different places. This repetition makes an already longish article wearying. I propose merging these two sections into one. Rwflammang (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

New Refs

Thanks, Leszek, for the ref. It was much needed. Rwflammang (talk) 13:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Deuterocanon and Apocrypha

returning to this article after more than a year, it is much improved but still uncertain on the above point. The first mention of apocrypha glosses the term with reference to Jerome's usage - that is to say 'Jewish books not found in the Hebrew, but translated from the Septuagint', which I take to be the same as the Deuterocanon. Elsewhere in the article, the term 'apocrypha' is used for books appended to the Clementine Vulgate Old Testament in a separate section - Prayer of Manasses. 3 &4 Esdras, plus sometimes others.

What I don't know, and ought perhaps to be noted in the article, is which books formed the pre-Tridentine Vulgate text? Hence when it is said of the Codex Amiatinus that it includes all the Old Testament, other than Baruch (but including the letter of Jeremiah0, does that mean that it includes the three books of the Clementine Vulgate aappendix? What about the other major Vlgate manuscripts?

My assumption is that the content of medieval Vulgate bibles varied greatly in respect of the Deuterocanon (as the texts themselves also did); but that the distinction 'Deuterocanon' and 'Apocrypha' did not function before the Clementine edition, and no medieval Vulgate manuscripts have a distinct appendix section. But I realise that I have no specfic reference that supports my supposition.

What I am working up to here, is the suggestion that we use the term 'Clementine Apocrypha' rather than 'apocrpha' to refer to the three books of the Vulgate appendix. TomHennell (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Doing some further reading around this, I find that R.H. Charles 'Apocrypha and Pseudapigrapha of the Old Testament' remarks that much of the confusion can be cleared up once we realise that the Council of Trent misread the canons of the Council of Carthage (397). Carthage accepted as canonical "two books of Ezra". Charles states that it can be determined that they understood this in the sensd of the LXX , i.e. 'Esdras A' = Vulgate Esdras 3; plus 'Esdras B' = Vulgate Esdras 1 and Esdras 2 = MT Ezra = AV Ezra + AV Nehemiah. But Trent assumed that Carthage meant just Vulgate Esdras 1 and Esdras 2. Hence Trent, in seeking to re-affirm the traditonal canon of Carthage, mistakenly (in their own terms)actually created an innovation which ruled Esdras 3 non-canonical. No version of the Christian Bible prior to the 16th century had ever excluded Esdras 3, as is shown by its universal inclusion in Greek and Latin Old Testament pandect manuscripts. But is Charles's theory now widely accepted? TomHennell (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Trent never said 3 Esdras was not canonical. They never said it was canonical and never said it wasn't. I'm not sure exactly how common 3 Esdras was in the Vulgate. It was in the Gutenberg and Clementine Vulgates, but I don't recall it being in Amiatinus, and it is certainly not in the Glossa ordinaria. Rwflammang (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Nor is it in the Complutensian polyglot. I'm kind of surprised to hear it was included in the Carthaginian bibles. Rwflammang (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

A clarification: "Jewish books not found in the Hebrew, but translated from the Septuagint", is not an entirely adequate description of the Vulgate's apocrypha. It would exclude 4 Esdras, which is not in the Septuagint, as well as Tobias, Judith, Song of the Three, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon, which are not translated from the Septuagint. Also note that the psalms are translated from the Septuagint, despite being protocanonical.

Another clarification: The meaning of the word "apocrypha" differs depending on who is using it and when. When Jerome used it, it meant the books which would later be found in the deuterocanon and also in the appendix to Clementine. After the Clementine Vulgate was published, the word "deuterocanonical" was coined, and "apocrypha" was reserved for those books in the appendix.

Also keep in mind that vulgates before Clement's did not have appendices.

Rwflammang (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections and clarifications. What is becoming apparent to me, is that this article needs a section on 'content' over and above what we have already. My understanding is that Latin pandect manuscripts were initially rare - until the 12th-13th century when pocket bibles weer produced in prodigious numbers for the university market. But it is not easy to tell which 'books' are in a manuscript bible; the Prayer of Manasseh for example might be added into quite a number of different titles. What we do know is that the three great pandect LXX mansucripts; Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus differ as to content.

Where there seems to have been more agreement (at leasts in the West) was to number - Augustine counted 46 books in the Old Testament canon, and 27 in the New, making 73 in all. But by combining and separating texts, a wide variety of different content can be made to fit within the number 73, and in accrodance with the accepted nomenclature.

Charles's theory makes sense to me; firslty in that it conforms with the LXX categorisation of the text, and secondly in that it is beyond doubt that patristic quotations of the period favour 3 Esdras over canonical Ezra where the two overlap (which is most of the time). My impression is that 3 Esdras was 'normal' in the Vulgate until the 15th century, and certainly not put in an appended section (although such sections were not unusual e.g for Laodiceans). The problem came at the Council of Florence, when both Latin and Greek churches agreed that the Old Testament contained two books of Ezra,. but then the Latin side was uncertain as to which Latin texts these titles denoted; an uncertainty that Trent resolved by creating (for the first time) a 'vulgate apocrypha'.

But I find no backing to Charles, both Protestant and Catholic commentators on the canon seem to accept that Cathage and Hippo denoted canonical Ezra and Nehemiah as the 'two books of Ezra'. But then I think; they would say that wouldn't they? TomHennell (talk) 11:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

They certainly would agree on that if it were obviously true. I don't see why else Jerome would have divied up Ezra into two books unless he were imitating the Vetus Latina; neither the LXX nor the Hebrew split Ezra into two.

FWIW, I suspect that the opposite case is true: most medieval vulgates did not have 3 nor 4 Esdras, but these became more common after the invention of printing. In other words, they were "lost" in the "dark ages", and recovered in the renaissance, like so many other oriental books. The earliest manuscripts for 3 Esdras I know of are 9th century Corbeiensis, an 11th century Parisian, and three 13th century Parisians including the Sorbonicus. As for 4 Esdras, the fact that all editions before the 19th century traced their text back to a single medieval manuscript, Sangermanensis, is evidence that it was not widely circulated in the middle ages.

I doubt that the fathers of Trent were confused by the numerology of Esdras; they were, after all, the very cream of the renaissance. Certainly Cardinal Allen in his preface to the vernacular Douay-Rheims version seems to have gotten it right very soon after Trent. I do not know how big an influence Carthage had on the fathers; I suspect they were far more influenced by the weight of the Latin tradition, as witnessed in Strabo's Glossa, the Complutensian polyglot, and yes, Florence.

At any rate, I agree that information on the contents of the Vulgate would be very helpful. I had already begun a breakout article on that very issue at Books of the Latin Vulgate. That article never went very far due to a lack of sources. Rwflammang (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I am interested in reading the arguments of Dr Charles. What volume did you say I could find them in? Rwflammang (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

the full text is on the web here: http://www.archive.org/details/apocryphapseudep01charuoft. Charles provides an introduction to each book of the apocrypha, but the main points are in the general introduction to Volume 1 (at page ix). If you google this stuff, you will find an extremely tedious and uninformative exchange of polemics; concerned with whether Trent was in error (in its own terms) in not including Esdras 3 in the canon of the Old Testament. All entirely irrelevant to this article, which is neither about conciliar inspiration, nor about the canon. But the question of which books formed the Vulgate Old Testament at various stages in its developement is - in my view - something that needs to be discussed. It often seems to be assumed that, as the Clementina became the definitive printed Vulgate, so its categorisation of the text should be applied retrospectively to the medieval Bible. In my view this is anachronistic; but then raises the issue of exactly what was the content of the 'Original Vulgate'. It is often noted that Amiatinus lacks Baruch, but was that a common case or an exception? Did the compilers of Amiatinus even know that they lacked Baruch (since this book was counted with Jeremiah in most standard statements of the canon). We know that the Codex Grandior counted 44 Old Testament books, but which texts were included, and how were they grouped into books? When and how did 4 Esdras come to be included in the Vulgate in the West, although not in LXX; and when did anyone notice the difference I take your point about the imortance of the Glossa, the Compulutensian, and Florence; but then these are different witnesses. The Glossa (on which I believe the consensus is that it originated with Anselm of Laon, and has nothing to do with Strabo) is mostly very hostile to the deuterocanon; in several cases stating explicitly "this book is not canonical". There was a strong body of Western medieval scholarly opinion that - taking its stand from Jerome's prologues - continued to hold firmly to the Hebrew canon. But I am unaware of any corresponding Hebrew-only Vulgate pandect manuscripts. TomHennell (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link; I shall read it forthwith.

The Glossa shows no hostility to the deuterocanonical books, unless you consider denying a book's canonicity hostility. IIRC, the Glossa includes extensive commentary on all of the deuterocanonical texts. Yet it does not comment on 3 or 4 Esdras. Rwflammang (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Baruch and sources

As for Baruch, Weber notes that, Hic liber deest in AΣOSTΦ. In CΛ textus ad Veterem Latinam versionem pertinet. So it is missing from Amiatinus, Toletanus, an 8th century Orleans, an 8th century St Gallen, and an 8th century Turonis, and most importantly from Alcuin's exemplars. Cavensis and Legionensis do not contain the Vulgate Baruch, but do contain a Vetus Latina version of it. Weber's apparatus cites approximately 20 early manuscripts that do explicitly contain Vulgate Baruch. So it looks like Amiatinus belongs to a small but prestigious club of early Baruch-omitters. Rwflammang (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

In terms of the article, there are I think two issues for a section regarding content; which are the stages in the development of the tradition that we would like to take a snapshot of, but also which authorities we would source that to. Does Weber actually discuss this particular issue, or are you working from his manuscript citations? I will have a look at some standard biblical dictionaries to see whether there is an article that gives a more up-to-date summary than that of Charles. The particular points that need to be discussed I think, are those for books that are considered to be in the LXX, but not in the Vulgate; which seems to be Esdras 3 and possibly (at some stage) Baruch. Charles, if I understand him correctly, seems to think that Esdras 3 was in the Vulgate in its earliest form, but that Baruch was not. But what is an up-to-date position. In this respect, the question of whether a Vulgate manuscript contains the Vulgate text for the more problematic books is irrelevant. Ideally I wouild like to know; a. what was the content of the Vulgate in each of the three main streams of textual tradition - Italian/Northumbrian, Spanish, Carolingian - as at the end of 9th century? What was the medieval Vulgate standard content for mass-produced Vulgates in the 12th/13th century? What was the Vulgate as established in the early printings - Gutenberg/Mazarin, Complutensian etc. Finishing, or course, with the Clementina. As you say, the inclusion of Esdras 4 seems to be very late; do whe know how common it was before the era of printing? TomHennell (talk) 10:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Weber's note and sources are drawn from the critical apparatus of the Stuttgart Vulgate. He explicitly says in the introduction that the issue of the vulgate text of Baruch is too big to be discussed there, so we will need other sources for any real mention of this in the article or in Books of the Latin Vulgate. Rwflammang (talk) 12:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I have seen a number of references/quotations touching on these issues from the article on the Vulgate in the Cambridge History of tbe Bible (Lampe ed. 1969), which I believe is by Sutcliffe. Do you have this? On another point, I also note that Bensly, in publishing in 1890 the 'missing' latin page of 4 Esdras as found in the Amiens manuscript, states that contrary to common opinion then, he had found Esdras 4 widely represented in pandects from the 13th century onwards, although all that he had examined derived from Sangermaniensis. He thought that the full latin text might well survive in quite a number of other manuscripts, simply waiting for a detailed collation to be done to find out. TomHennell (talk) 12:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Esdras

I do not have the Cambridge History. Nor am I aware of any collation of 4 Esdras manuscripts, beyond what the Stuttgart Vulgate cites. I did read some of your link to Charles. I am chuffed to report that on page 3 he supports my impression of a renaissance for 3 Esdras, that while common in the editions, it "is wanting in the early MSS. of the Vulgate." (I will try not to let this go to my head.) I confess, though, that I do not find his argument that there "is no reason to doubt" that Carthage's 1 Esdras is the same as the Septuagint's Esdras A to be extremely persuasive. I seem to recall some discussion somewhere that concluded that the Vetus Latin used the same numbering for the Esdras books that the Vulgate later adopted. I'll try to rummage up a reference. Cheers. Rwflammang (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I may have to back off from my recollection above. Thus the Jewish Encyclopedia:

The apocryphal Book of Ezra, or, better, the "Greek Ezra" (Esdræ Græcus), is called Εσδρας in the Greek Bible, where it precedes the canonical books of Ezra and Nehemiah, counted there as one book, Εσδρας β'. In the old Latin Bible it was I Esdras; but after Jerome, with his strong preference for the books preserved in Hebrew, had rejected it from the canon, it was usually counted as III Esdras: then either Ezra was I Esdras, and Nehemiah was II Esdras; or Ezra-Nehemiah was I Esdras, and ch. 1, 2 of the Apocalypse of Esdras was II Esdras. Sometimes, however, the Greek Ezra is called II Esdras: then Ezra-Nehemiah is I Esdras, and the Apocalypse is III Esdras; or, as in the Ethiopic Bible, the latter is I Esdras, and Ezra-Nehemiah follows as III Esdras or as III and IVEsdras. In the English Bible it is again entitled I Esdras; here the canonical book retained the Hebrew form of its name, that is, "Ezra," whereas the two apocryphal books, ascribed to the same author, received the title in its Græco-Latin form—"Esdras." In the ancient Latin version I Esdras has the subscription "De Templi Restitutione." Two Latin translations were made: the "Vetus Latina" (Itala) and the "Vulgate." In Syriac the book is found only in the Syro-Hexaplar of Paul, Bishop of Tella (616-617), not in the older Peshiṭta. There are also an Ethiopic and an Armenian version.

Rwflammang (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting. I have had a good nose around the library, but not found much that is helpful. For the most part it seems, textual scholars are not interested in the Vulgate OT; the OL and LXX appear to have much more sex appeal. Problem is that Jerome's translation is too good; in that it represents a proto-Masoretic text reasonably well; but that is a text we have anayway. None of the dictionaries was that informative on the points I raised, but I did track down a series of studies of the Old Testament in the Anglo-saxon tradition. The main points made in these are that Amiatinus represents the early Italian Vulgate, in both text and content. Hence it lacks Esdras 3 and 4, and Prayer of Manasseh (corresponding to the later Clementina), but also Baruch. (These references state that it also lacks The letter of Jeremiah, but I have seen it elsewhere stated that this is not so, would you know which is true?). Vulgates of the Alcuin recension also lacks Baruch, which first appears in a Vulgate with Theodulf, and enters the Anglo-saxon tradition from Thodulfian sources in the 11th century. 3 and 4 Esdras are first witnessed in the 9th century Amiens manuscript (which originated at Corbie), and in Sangermanensis; but both books are also found in upwards of a dozen witnesses of 11th century data or earlier. The regular inclusion of both Baruch and the two Esdras books in the Vulgate derives from their being included in the standard 13th century Paris text - as too is the case for the Prayer of Manasseh. It was a text of this type that served as the standard for the Gutenberg Bible - and hence to the Great Bible and the Geneva Bible. Otherwise, Fuldensis and many Italian Vulgates include the Epistle to the Laodiceans, and that is also found in some later Anglo-saxon Vulgates (but not in Amiatinus). Amiatinus does also include Psalm 151 (with a note that it is extra to the usual number of the Psalms). TomHennell (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

N.B. Catholic Encyclopedia also states that 3 Esdras precedes 1 Esdras in Old Latin mss. Cites THACKERAY, First Book of Esdras. Rwflammang (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

There is an aticle on Wikipedia on Codex Sangermanensis which I am finding most confusing, but I am coming to the opinion that two manuscripts of that name are being conflated there. The uncial Sangermanensis 0319 is an 9th century diglot with the text of Paul, now in Petersburg; while there is a Latin Sangermanensis that is a 9th century pandect in Paris, and which is designated G in the Vulgate NT, and S in the Vulgate OT. For our purposes, it is the latter that is important, as it appears to be the first pandect that includes both 3 Esdras and 4 Esdras. All late medieval witnesses to 4 Esdras derive from S, (readily demonstrated because they all demonstrate a lacuna conrresponding to missing leaf in S). Bensley found in Amiens an additional 9th century mancuscript from Corbie, tht he called A; which consuists of five books of Ezra: Vulgate Ezra/Nehemiah as one book, 3 Esdras as a second book, and 4 Esdras as three books. This would support 3 Esdras and 4 Esdras as being included in the Vulgate at Corbie in this period. Subsequent to the publication of Bensley's discovery in 1895, about half a dozen other 9th/10th century independent witnesses to the Latin text of 4 Esdras were reported.

From this I conclude that 3 Esdras and 4 Esdras began to be included in some Vulgates in the 9th century, but that this remained rare until large-scale production of pocket editions of the Vulgate bible developed in Paris in the 13th century; when S served as the exemplar for the 3 Esdras and 4 Esdras Paris texts. TomHennell (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I have found a number of references which suggest that some points discussed on this thrad my be dealt with in chapeter of Gameson ed. "The Early Medieval Bible". I will look to see if I can track down a copy in the library. One point on which I would welcome comments is an observation that the predominance of the Gallican psalter of the Vulgate (from the Hexaplaric Greek) is due to Alcuin; and before then, the Hebraic psalter was more widely found (as indeed it is in Amiatinus) TomHennell (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

More on Esdras

Jerome himself discusses the enumeration of Esdras in his prolog to Ezra. He says there that he should not be criticized for translating Ezra as one book, since that is how the Hebrew's do it. He describes the splitting of the book into 1 Esdras and Nehemias as a practice which he does not follow. He also mentions that he is dropping the apocryphal 3 and 4 Esdras from his translation. His comments seem to indicate that the numbering of 1 and 2 Esdras as 3 and 4 Esdras predate his translation. Prologue here. Rwflammang (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

An interesting quote from another early Latin author, Tyrannius Rufinus, mentioning "two books of Esdras, which the Hebrews reckon 1": here. Rwflammang (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

Some comments and questions on recent edits... Rwflammang (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Composition

Laodiceans and Psalm 151 are now mentioned in the Composition section, although they are not described by the cited source, Plater and White. A source for these needs to be added.

A recent edit reads, ... his first version of the Psalter including Psalm 151(the Roman Psalter). Did he actually translate Psalm 151? I'd be amazed.

A recent edit says that Jerome revised the Psalterium romanum. This revision has traditionally been ascribed to him, but 19th century research casts this tradition in great doubt.

Should the Romanum even be mentioned? Isn't it off-topic? What edition of the Vulgate includes it?

The mention of the Hebraicum needs to be qualified, so the reader understands how rarely this psalter is found in the Vulgate.

Was Laodiceans in the Old Latin? Plater and White don't mention it, that I recall. Rwflammang (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for these, I am trying to tidy things up, and may well have mistaken some of the references. Laodiceans and Psalm 151 are both in the Stuttgart Vulgate, which I am sugggesting should be taken as defining 'The Vulgate' for the purpose of this article. Psalm 151 is an interesting case; Gameson says that the text in Amiatinus is Hexaplaric. Did anyone else other than Jerome produce a Latin Hexaplaric psalter? The question of whether Jerome did indeed revise the Roman psalter is not one that I have pursued, it was stated in the original section. It would certainly be a lot neater if we could exclude it altogether (as Weber does). However, I understood it does feature as the version of the psalms in some early Vulgates. Can you confirm or refute this? Gameson definitely states that the Hebraicum should be considered the standard Vulgate psalter up to Alcuin (and beyond, Theodulf also uses it). The Gallicanum only appears more common, because we have an awful lot of complete Alcuin bibles. Laodiceans is in Fuldensis; since it clearly cannot have come from Jerome (who rejected it out of hand) it must I presume be Old Latin? I welcome your further comments, and wil go back to the references to check the points you query TomHennell (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Gameson sounds like an interesting reference; I will await your inclusion of him in the citations.

I agree that Laodiceans did not come from Jerome, but it may be a stretch to assume that it is Vetus Latina. Baruch and 3 Esdras did not come from Jerome either, yet there are VL versions that differ from the Vulgate versions of these books. If we don't have a reference, it is much safer to just not mention it.

Jerome's translation of the psalter is the only one I know of from the Hexapla, but my ignorance does not imply that he must have translated 151.

Is there a pre-hexaplar translation of 151? I ask because you mention it as being in the Roman psalter as well. I ask out of curiosity only, because I still dispute the relevance of the Roman psalter to this article. If we aim to provide any more than the most cursory examination of the textual issues of the Vulgate, I fear that we will open a can of very detailed worms that is out of place in an encyclopedia article. This can of worms may afflict the article even if we stay on topic; going off topic with the Roman Psalter will only make it worse. Rwflammang (talk)

Thanks for this, I will check on the article on Jerome as translator in the Cambridge History of the Bible. That should clear up the issue of whether the Roman psalter is to be identified with Jerome's 'hasty' revision. If not, then I am sure the article would be better without it as you say. I am mainly trying to pin down the issue of contents rather than a detailed textual history. There is clearly still an unresolved academic disagreement as to the post-9th century Vulgate text. Loewe in the Cambridge History of the Bible, states that the Alcuin text dominated the Vulgate tradition up to the development of the Paris Bible around 1230; while Theodulf had very little influence. An alternative view seems to be argued in Marsden "The text of the Old Testament"; that Theodulf was much more influential in the 9th-12th centuries, although nobody doubts that the Paris Bible draws more on Alcuin. It is also stated that, apart from in the Theodulf texts, Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah were almost never found in the Vulgate until the 13th century. What I have still not been able to track down is quite at which stage 3 Esdras becomes standard in the medieval Vulgate. In discussing the general issue of Vulgate Old Testament texts, Ulrich Schmid makes the point that we don't even have any reliable estimates as to how many Vulgate Old Testaments there are (the often quoted figure of 8,000 is for Vulgate New Testaments - but after 1200, full bibles are much more commonly found than New Testaments or individual books). For the most part, Schmid claims, very few of these Old Testament manuscripts have been studied in detail; indeed it is likely that most have not even been seriously read for the best part of 500 years. But detailed textual study is largely confined to texts dating from the 9th to 11th centuries - and only a sub-set of those have been fully collated. For instance, it seems generally accepted that many Byzantine readings found their way into the later medieval Vulgate; but where from, and how, and when? If you look in Weber, it would appear that many (perhaps the majority) of textual variants in the Clementine Vulgate have no cited manuscript support. This surely cannot be the case, but which manuscripts, other than the familiar 8th/9th century texts, did the Clementine editors actually use? TomHennell (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

A good point about the Clementine, but keep in mind that Weber does not list all manuscript variations; his is, after all, only a manual edition. The only times that the Clementine has no known manuscript support is when it is cited as c. with the dot (a.k.a. full stop) in c-dot being significant. These c-dots are relatively rare, and are clearly not the majority. That said, I cannot answer your question about which manuscripts, if any, they used. By the end of the 16th century, manuscripts had become rarely used; I believe that the Clementine relied primarily on the editions, including the editions of the Septuagint... Rwflammang (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Some references. The citation to Tkacz looks especially promising. Rwflammang (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

yes indeed, very helpful. I will see how many I references can follow up. Tkacz does look interesting as a study of Jerome's literary method, but I am not sure where it might contribute to the article. The issues I am trying to clarify are those relating to what constituted the Vulgate at various places and times; and how and when these changed. The linked introduction does make the relationship of the various Psalters much clearer, and much more comprehensible. It does not, however, clarify the position of Psalm 151. Clearly this is missing from the Hebraicum, and I am assuming that it was present in the Romanum. How often is it absent in the Gallicanum, and is there pattern of prescence and absence? We know that in England - before the Norman conquest - the Romanum remained the standard liturgical psalter, while the Hebraicum appears to have been found in pandect bibles. I have been assuming that, outside France, this was standard practice; and that Alcuin should be credited with establishing the Gallicanum in liturgical use. Am I correct in this?

Reading further, I am clear my speculation was incorrect. There seems (everywhere?) up to the 9th century to have been a distinction between the version of psalms sung in the Psalter, and the version of psalms read in the Vulgate. The latter was commonly the Hebraicum (at least that was the case in Italy, Ireland, Spain and England). The former might either be the Roman or the Galllican. (I am inclined to speculate that the Hebraicum is not very singable). Alcuin simply incorporated the Psalter version into his Vulgate text. Otherwise, and quite comonly from the Carolingian and Ottonian period, double psalter texts survive - from Ireland, France and Spain - which set the Hebraicum (Vulgate) and Gallicanum (Psalter) texts side by side. There are triple psalters with all three versions. Alcuin's practiceeventually became adopted as standard. TomHennell (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the Hebraicum psalter is in no way singable. Don't take my word for it; Jerome himself says so in his prologue. It has never been used liturgically.

Weber cites Amiatinus and Alcuin for psalm 151, and that's it as far as bibles go: One Hebraic and one Gallican. His other three citations are psalters, two doubles and one triplex. The only edition containing 151 is the Benedictine: it was lacking from Gutenberg and Clement and all the editions between.

The typical psalter does not list the psalms in their biblical order, but rather in their sung order: night, morning, day, and evening, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, etc. Mixed in with the psalms are various canticles, also listed in order of day. In an appendix are various occasional prayers. Since psalm 151 does not appear in any psalm schema I've ever heard of (and I have heard of many), then I would assume that on the rare occasion when 151 makes any appearance at all, it would be in the appendix.

Double psalters are not unheard of. Most typically they are Roman+Gallican though, rather than Gallican+Hebraicum. The Roman psalters vied with the Gallican for a long time for dominance in the Breviary. Outside of a few special places and uses, the Gallican was ultimately dominant. Today the Roman is mostly used for the Venite Adoremus at matins, for psalm verses at mass, and for the chants in the big Roman basilicas. The Ambrosian and the Mozaribic Divine Office use psalters very similar to the Roman. There is a legend that Charlemagne memorized both psalters. But ultimately it was the Gallican that became the psalter of both the Vulgate and the Breviary. The Roman was never the psalter of the Vulgate, and the Hebraic was never the psalter of the Breviary. Rwflammang (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that is all very helpful. If Psalm 151 is in Alcuin, and if the version in Amiatinus is Gallican, (as Marsden asserts) then that would imply to me that - at least at some stage - the Gallican psalter included a translation of Psalm 151 (as you say, most probably as an appendix). I will check to see whether this is thought to be due to Jerome, or a later addition. I understand that Psalm 151 is nowadays the set chant for the processional entry into the Easter Saturday service in the oriental tradition; which is also the only service when the Apocalypse is read. When this practice started, I have no idea. If it really was entirely supernumery in the West in the 8th century, then it does seem surprising that Amiatinus includes it; since that codex was intended to be presented to the Pope, it might be expected that Ceolfrid and Bede would have taken especial care to ensure that its content corresponded exactly to the Roman standard - no more, no less. TomHennell (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Since there is only one Vulgate version of 151, I see little need to distinguish whether it be "Gallican" or anything else. Rwflammang (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe so, but that is how it is described in the sources. According to Marsden, the Roman Psalter introduced to England by St Augustine of Canterbury had Psalm 151, but this had dropped out by the 8th century. When the Hebrew psalm text was introduced (from Ireland) it had the Gallican psalm 151; which was then copied into existing Roman psalters as an extra leaf. He also points out that the long series of Cassinian Vulgate bibles (10th to 15th centuries) all use the Roman psalter. Nothing is ever simple in Vulgate terms. TomHennell (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

the cases of Baruch and the Letter of Jermiah seem slighly different to the others. All Vulgate texts of these books derive from that of Theodulf, for which he used his own critical revision of a Spanish text. Maybe it is less a matter of an Old Latin and Vulgate Baruch/Letter text, and more a pre-Theodulf and post-Theodulf text. TomHennell (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Be that as it may, the literature I have read labels these two versions "Vulgate" and "Vetus Latina". Rwflammang (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Translation

Jerome's revised text of the Psalms was adopted in Rome as the standard text for liturgical use. When? What does this have to do with his translating? Later you say that his revision was adopted in Gaul, but not elsewhere. Again, when? It is certainly used outside of Gaul today. These vague statements add little to an encyclopedia article and can be misleading. This information is expanded in more detail in Latin Psalters.

Jerome argued that they should not be included in the Old Testament. Not that I've ever seen. He stated (not argued) that they were not in the canon, not that they should be excluded from the Old Testament. I have never read Jerome expressing an editorial preference for the contents of a biblical codex. And he pointedly refused to dispute about the canon, deferring to the bishops in that matter, who did all the disputing. Rwflammang (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Bacon

I've been keeping an eye open for the first use of the term Vulgata to describe this Bible, attributed to Roger Bacon. I stumbled across this in the first volume of his Opus Majus:

Et ideo Augustinus et alii et ipsemet Hieronymys tempore suo usi sunt sicut Ecclesia translatione antiqua. Et ideo Augustinum quum recitat textum hunc decimo sexto de Civitate Dei et exponit oportuit quod uteretur translatione quae fuit vulgata et recepta apud Latinos, nec potuit aliud facere.

Ironically, it is reference to the Vetus Latina. Rwflammang (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting article [here http://www.bible-researcher.com/vulgate5.html]. Rwflammang (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Manuscript contents

A lot of work went into this section, but after thinking about it for several months, I have come to the conclusion that the whole section is too wonkish for inclusion in an encyclopedia article, which is necessarily brief. So I have moved it from here to Books of the Latin Vulgate, which is, by its very nature, a more wonkish article. If you disagree, revert, and let's discuss the issues here.

Rwflammang (talk) 22:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point; though in my view, the section of the article on the contents of the Vulgate are easier to follow if the tablulation of books is at hand. At least that was my intention in putting it in in the first place. But I am happy to leave it to othe judgement of others whether the table adds clarity or confusion.

Two additonal points incline me to favour inclusion the table, if possible, in this article. Firstly, the sections on the history of the Vulgate, and on Vulgate manuscripts in the Catholic Encyclopedia (which is widely available on the internet) are misleading or wrong on many points; and tendentious throughout. The author of those articles was seeking, in effect, to defend the Clementine edition as a normative and 'pure' Vulgate text handed down from the the 5th century ; and misrepresents the manuscript evidence where it conflicts with his thesis. The table corrects a number of his misrepresentations.

The article on Books of the Latin Vulgate is itself inconsistent with this article, in that that article takes the Clementine edition as the standard 'Vulgate'; wherease here we have the Stuttgart edition as the standard. That need not matter, if the 'Books' article is understood as functioning chiefly as a means to point to relevant Wikipedia articles on particular books. But it does matter if that article is taken to summarise current scholarship on the history of the Vulgate, which as I understand it, does not accord the Clementine text any sort of privildged status.

what do you think? TomHennell (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that the purpose of this article is to refute the Catholic Encyclopedia, regardless of its merits of lack thereof. I also don't think that this article's purpose should be to address any shortcomings in the "Books" article, since those can easily enough be addressed there.

I wasn't aware that the Stuttgart was the "standard" edition of this article. I thought that this article covered three editions in some detail as representative, and mentioned many others which are of historic interest, although no longer in print. What would the designation "standard edition" even mean to an encyclopedia article?

At any rate, although I find the subject of Vulgate contents fascinating, I suspect that most encyclopedia readers do not. I think it is important that the information be available, but it need not be reduplicated here. In the past, a similar problem afflicted the subject of the psalms, which was much too big a diversion from the other parts of this article. (Y'know, undue weight, tail wagging the dog, etc.) So it was spun off into Latin Psalters, and a brief summary was left in this article. Rwflammang (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I misstated my point on the Stuttgart Edition. There is a 'standard' scholarly Vulgate text for the purposes of textual criticism, and it is indicated as 'vg' in the critical apparatus of works of Biblical scholarship. That text is the Stuttgart text (which, since this is most commonly an activity of New Testament critics is mainly that of Wordsworth and White). As a Wikipedia article must reflect the scholarly consensus; so it should be made clear that - where scholarship refers to a 'Vulgate' reading, it is the Stuttgart text that is given. Where a reading from the Clementine edition is given, then that is denoted variously otherwise - but never as 'vg'. In general, where there is a standard scholarly text of a work, then it is indeed exactly a function of an encyclopedia to inform the interested reader which this is, and which this is not.

I agree that it is not a primary purpose of Wikipedia to refute the Catholic Encyclopedia' - certainly not to take pot-shots at a work that is now over 100 years old - but I do think there is a value Wikipedia's setting down accurately, information that circulates commonly in mistaken form on the internet.

I have, however, no objection to leaving the table off this article, if that is what other editors prefer. In so far as the 'Books' article consequently requires re-editing (and perhaps retitling) then I shall do so there. Your point on Latin Psalters is certainly one with which I would fully concur; as Psalters and Vulgates are indeed very different works. TomHennell (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The Latin vulgate is NOT the same as the Vetus Latina

There is a big error on Wikipedia. The Vetus Latina is also known as the Vulgate but these two are totally different.

1 - Vulgate by Jerome, 4th century 2 - Vulgate that was used by the Waldensians

These two are totally different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fromtheold (talk • contribs) 09:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Provide a reliable source demonstrating this. Sources which say "The Waldensians were older than Peter Waldo" are WP:FRINGE and do not count as reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that the article as it currently stands makes a pretty clear distinction between the Vulgate and the Vetus Latina. Am I missing something? Rwflammang (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Examining Fromtheold's edits to Waldensians, he seems to be trying to make a point that the Waldensians were involved in the Vetus Latina or something. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Not true. My point was that it does not look to me that the distinction is clear enough between the Vulgate and the Vetus Latina as Rwflammang said. Fromtheold (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Correct reading should say:`

The correct reading should not say "for Christians during these times the phraseology and wording of the Vulgate permeated all areas of the culture" but it should say "for Roman Catholics" as all Christians were not Roman Catholic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fromtheold (talk • contribs) 11:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

What happened to Vulgate.org?

When you are dealing with medieval literature it is impossible not to use the Vulgate. As the editor of a free on-line dictionary of medieval Dutch literary proper names (REMLT) I link to other free on-line databases such as Google Earth, Wikipedia and Vulgate.org. At 02-02-2013, when I was planning my monthly update, I discovered that Vulgate.org was not on-line anymore. To my great relief the site was back on-line at the end of february. But now it is of-line again. I have tried to get in contact with them but I cannot find an e-mail address ... What is going on? Does anybody know?

Yours,

Willem Kuiper 12:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wthjmkuiper (talk • contribs)

It's there right now. Rwflammang (talk) 03:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Authorship, second bullet item

"Translation from the Greek of Theodotion by Jerome": Is the "Greek" referring to the Septuagint? If so, why not say so? If not, then what? I don't know what it should be, but the way it is leaves me wondering, so more specific info would help. Evenssteven (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It certainly is not the Septuagint. It is the translation into Greek by Theodotion. Rwflammang (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much. It's clear to me now. I must have had a brain freeze or something. Evenssteven (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Council of Trent: Magisterial authority

Hello, Did the Council of Trent really declare the translation of the Vulgate as infallible? It does not specifically claim so, does not give any anathema to anyone who disagrees with this as in the previous chapter. It even allows to print other versions of the Bible "(this Synod) ordains and decrees, that, henceforth, the sacred Scripture, and especially the said old and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible;" (just after the text quoted in Wikipedia).

But on the other hand, it says "But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema."

There should be a citation claiming so. 83.26.214.8 (talk) 07:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It's explained in: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html 20 and next 83.26.214.8 (talk) 07:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Lions and Masons and Jews, oh my!

What should we do about the web site recently added in the External links section and which now sits at the top of that list? It has some very nice PDFs of the Vulgate, which would be nice to keep, but it is quite frankly a crackpot site, and it does not reflect well on Wikipedia to link to it. Any ideas? Rwflammang (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I suggest replacing this link with the one here. Is there some reason to prefer the 17th century edition to Vercellone's 19th century one? Rwflammang (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Greek word for Vulgate

Is there any particular reason that the Greek name for the Vulgate is notable enough to include in the lede, or even in the article at all? Rwflammang (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Pierre-Maurice Bogaert,

May I suggest that this article is in need of a thorough reworking in respect of the History of the Vulgate text. I don't think that there would be many dissenters from the evaluation that far the most notable scholar in this field over the past 50 years has been Pierre-Maurice Bogaert; but his name does not feature anywhere in the article or references. I am sure that this was chiefly due to very few of this works formerly being in English; but that is no longer the case. In Volumes 1 and 2 of the 'New Cambridge History of the Bible' (Vol 1 to 1600; Vol II 600-1450) Bogaert has contributed the chapters on the History of the Latin Versions. So I suggest that the article may now be extensively rewritten to incorporate his perspectives. Necessarily this will also imply taking into account his French publications, specifically perhaps 'Le livre de Baruch dans les manuscrits de la Bible latine. Disparition et réintégration; which has settled firmly the specific exclusion of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah from the Vulgate Old Testament; until its halting re-introduction from the Vetus Latina over the period 800 to 1300. This consensus of recent scholarship is absent from the article as it stands; as too are a number of other themes of Bogaert's work:

- the significance of the dating of the Leon palimpsest leaves pandect (Beuron 067) to the 7th century;

- the evidence for continuing scholarly awareness of the distinctions between 'Old'(VL) and 'New' translations (and of their differences from the Hebrew);

- the counterpart continuing awareness of the the differing Vulgate Psalm versions;

- the degree to which the dominance of the pandect form in the Latin manuscript tradition from the 9th century onwards steered the development of the text. TomHennell (talk) 08:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

editing "Vulgate manuscripts"

{{Vulgate manuscripts}}

the tabulation of sigla for Vulgate manuscripts is clearly incomplete; and has several errors. Would any editor be able to advise me how it may be edited? Regards TomHennell (talk) 14:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

sussed it. Obviously you have to edit the template Template:Vulgate manuscripts, but your edits don't appear in this article until you delete the link above, and then re-instate it. Not happy with the principle though; as a template should not supply article text. Which other articles use this template? TomHennell (talk) 10:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Pandect

Can we please explain the terms pandect bible and majescule pandect? Pandect redirects to an article about Roman law digests, and the Wiktionary definition ("comprehensive collection") raises more questions that it answers, in the context of a bible that does or does not include the Apocrypha. FWIW, a Google search on majescule redirects me to majuscule. Peter Chastain ^[¡habla!] 16:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I have corrected the spelling, and added appropriate links for both terms. I do need to rewrite the section on Manuscripts; where a specific defintiion of 'pandect' should be offered. It has nothing to do with including/no including the Apocrypha though; a pandect is simply a manuscript that seeks to gather all the books of the Bible into one codex (which may be in a single volume, or several). One feature of the history of the Vulgate is that, from around the 13th century onwards, the majority of manuscripts are pandects (either the whole bible, or the whole New Testament). Otherwise, the only common sub-collections of books of the bible from this period onwards; are books of Psalms, and Gospels. Though there is a sub-set of pandects that contain the entire bible minus the Gospels or Psalms (or both). But although most Vulgates were pandects, that did not at all mean that they had exactly the same content. Clearly, the scribes of the Codex Amiatinus took great pains to create a pandect that corresponded exactly to the content of the full Vulgate. But that content was not the same as that which would be the full Sixto-Clementine Vulgate. TomHennell (talk) 15:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Vulgate and the Council of Trent.

The current text here:

The Vulgate was given an official capacity by the Council of Trent (1545–1563) as the touchstone of the biblical canon concerning which parts of books are canonical. When the council listed the books included in the canon, it qualified the books as being "entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition". The fourth session of the Council specified 72 canonical books in the Bible: 45 in the Old Testament, 27 in the New Testament; Lamentations not being counted as separate from Jeremiah.

I cannot verify the Sutcliffe reference; but it is old, and appears misleading. The Council of Trent adopted its definitive canon from the abortive Papal Bull proposing union with the Coptic Church published following the Council of Florence. This meant that three books then standard in printed Vulgate editions, both Catholic and Reformed - 3 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Prayer of Manasses - were excluded from the Canon of Trent. In proposing the use of the 16th century Vulgate as the Catholic standard Latin edition of the Bible, the Council was declaring the Vulgate Latin text as 'authentic', not adopting its full contents. Suggest this is clarified TomHennell (talk) 09:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

References