On Tue, 2 Sep 1997 [log in to unmask] wrote:
> Several list members seem to make no distinction between the
> Sixto-Clementine version, and the modern critical edition. The
> Sixto-Clementine (hereafter S-C) version is fine for evcery-day use, but
> one should realize it's a sixteenth-century edition, not a modern critical
> edition.
> The S-C is, however, largely close to the Bible Parisienne text, which was
> edited in early-thirteenth century Paris, and used throughout the later
> Middle Ages.
The one-volume version of the Stuttgart critical edition is very handy,
but it is an attempt to provide the principal witnesses to the Vulgate of
St Jerome. As Frans, says, the Clementine Vulgate is much later, but this
is occasionally a virtue for medievalists. It is very close to the
influential 13th-century Paris text, considered too late to be of interest
by Fischer, Weber, etc. in their critical edition.
On this point Jean Longere remarks in La predication medievale (Paris,
1983), p. 180: Pour les medievistes, l'edition courant de la Vulgate
clementine garde sa valeur; elle est souvent plus proche du texte
"parisien", non retenu dan l'appart de la Bible Fischer-Weber.
The Nova Vulgata is a new official Latin version based on modern
research on the Greek and Hebrew texts. It's not of use to medievalists.
Pius XII issued a new Latin Psalter for liturgical use in the '40s or
'50s, but I think it was widely considered a failure. Maybe someone
(Anselm?) can tell us the story of that. I'm not sure what kind of
reception the Nova Vulgata had.
The classic English translation of the Vulgate is, of course, the
Douay-Rheims version, very useful as a crib because it is such a literal
translation, especially before the 18th-cent. revision by Challoner.
--
Paul Chandler || Yarra Theological Union
[log in to unmask] || Melbourne College of Divinity
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|