> Talk about over-reaction! As a grad student, I once suggested that perhaps
> "eschatology" needed a rest. I was wrong. It just needed closer definition for
> specific uses.
>
> "Vulgate" as the abstract concept of the Latin Bible Jerome produced for his
> sponsor(s) makes sense, as does "Septuagint" for the supposed efforts of Ptolemy's
> supposed group of 72 translators of the Hebrew Pentateuch. That neither ideal
> entity exists, or perhaps ever existed beyond the idealized original, does not
> render the terms meaningless. But as VK preaches (partly blaming me), let's be
> clear what we mean by the terms.
>
> While there never was an original and homogeneous "the Septuagint Bible" in the
> broad sense of an ancient Greek biblical translation/edition (of course by the 4th
> century CE, such an anthology had been compiled and came to be dubbed "the
> Septuagint," in its various forms), and there never was an "Old Latin (Itala, Vetus
> Latina) Bible" in the same sense (although Latin translations of various biblical
> books were produced by various people in various times and places prior to Jerome,
> and these materials may also have been collected into a Latin biblical anthology by
> the 4th century -- what was Jerome commissioned to replace/correct?), there
> apparently was a selfconsciously homogeneous edition/translation of it all produced
> by Jerome around the start of the 5th century, "the Vulgate."
>
> I know, I know. What about the Psalter, for which Jerome did at least two editions.
> Are they both "Vulgate"?

Jerome's first translation of the Psalter was compiled

based on existing Latin (vetus/Latina) versions (mare's

nest). He was quite dissatisfied and did a fresh translation

(this is "The" Gallican).Still dissatisifed, he (with the help of

Paula and her women) made a fresh translation called

Hebraicum.

The three versions of Jerome's psalm translations

around in Western Europe, as already mentioned,

were referred to as Gallican, Romanum, and Hebraicum.

Note that the Medievals did not write "the" -- just Gal.,

Rom., and Heb. above the columns. And the Medievals

sure didn't refer to "The Vulgate."

>My edition of the Latin Bible (Old Vulgate) has the Iuxta
> Hebraica Psalter as an appendix, so in that sense, yes (or maybe yes minus). But
> that's what footnotes and careful definitions (and attention to context) are for,
> nicht wahr?
>
> RAK

But is it sufficient to break the idea of a monolithic homogeneous "The"

that drives so much critical work on the Psalters off into swamps and

quicksand? No, it is not. Is not the attempt to get away from "the" why

in Biblical, as you know, scholars refer to OG and MT? It sure doesn't

help the situation when certain publishers insist on "the."

VK, there are 14 OE versions of the Psalms, some incomplete.

Of these 14, there are two main strrams and two isolates. 6 a

re based on Gallican -- these are all products of, and post, the

Benedictine reform. 6 are based on Romanum . The Vespasian

and the Paris Psalters are isolates. The 6 Romanum based ones

may or may not be translations -- they are usually called "glosses" --

but I have me doots. The 6 on Gallican again may or may not

be "glosses." The two isolates.are translations from original texts.

John, as there was no such thing as a "typical" Medieval Vulgate -

Psalter -- they wouldn't have known what you were talking

about --, you might be able to settle for the Gallican version

in the Eadwine ... it's a deluxe altar psalter and a study

psalter with commentaries and, as I noted, versions of

Romanum and Hebraicum.

Incidentally, this is what Chapters 9 and 10 are all about --

religious music, the psalms are why 10 is called "To Sing

a New Song."

Regards,

Rochelle

>
> > Okay. I vote for scrapping both "Vulgate" and "Septuagint" as meaningless words
> > in a scholarly world.
> >
> > --V. K.
> >
> > Quoting John Briggs <[log in to unmask]>:
> >
> > > > I think "Vulgate" very probably is meaningless. Restricting it to
> > "Jerome's
> > > translation" is probably hopeless, especially as that probably wasn't
> > > exactly what anyone in the Middle Ages actually had in front of them. The
> > > "Stuttgart Vulgate" seeks to reproduce precisely what Jerome wrote, but as
> > > changes set in almost immediately, the usefulness of that edition isn't
> > > readily obvious. I would much prefer to have a 'typical Medieval Vulgate' -
> > > whatever that might be! (Incidentally, nearly all copies of "The Vulgate"
> > > loose on the internet are defective copies of the Stuttgart Vulgate.) Even
> > > the "Clementine Vulgate" underwent changes - particularly in the 20th
> > > century! The existence of a "Nova Vulgata" suggests that the unqualified
> > > use of the word "Vulgate" is unwise. (There isn't a single Old Latin
> > > version either, and seeing that Jerome was revising one or more of them, and
> > > didn't finish the task because he got interested in Hebrew ... )
> > >
> > > John Briggs
> > >
> > >
> >

> --
> Robert A. Kraft, Religious Studies, University of Pennsylvania
> 227 Logan Hall (Philadelphia PA 19104-6304); tel. 215 898-5827
> [log in to unmask]
> http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/kraft.html
>