Jump to content

Vulgata Psalms


Yohanan

Recommended Posts

There used to be a version Vulgata 2 with the original Psalms for Vulgata, which Accordance, ignoring apparently the tradition of the text, has wrongly replaced by he version of Jerome against the Hebrew. I cannot find this text any more under the title Vulgata 2, any idea where it slipped away?…

 

Thanks in advance!

 

Yohanan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember having Latin Nova Vulgata and Latin Vulgate (Clementine) but I do not remember ever seeing a Vulgata 2.... I hope someone from Accordance can help you.

 

-Dan

PS: Biblia Sacra: Psalmi Iuxta Hebraicum et Varia Lectio, electronic edition of the 3rd edition. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1969). Is a work I have in Verbum (Logos) but I do not remember ever seeing it available from Accordance but I might be wrong.

Edited by Dan Francis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Dan,

But this is exactly the contrary unless they changed this some time ago. I have to check, but my surprise

was just this that "Vulgata" in Psalms Accordance was the Iuxta Hebraicum and not the Vulgata.

I check and then get back to this.

Yohanan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Yohanan

 

I think what you're looking for is "Latin Vulgate (Parallel Texts)"?

Edited by Pchris
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks a lot PChris! That's it. The Vulgata of Psalms is in a "Parallel Texts" and he Latin Psalter is the Iuxta Hebraicum in Accordance. 

 

This is also an answer to you Dan, be careful not to call Vulgata of Psalms but what is found in Latin Vulgata Parallel texts. I guess it is by ignorance that Accordance has deemed the nearest text to the Masoretic to be the Vulgata. I doubt Luther would have agreed with that... and, somewhere it should be corrected.

 

Anyway, I am happy to have it back, even if treated as kind of an Apocrypha, a "parallel text" to the Bible though it has been the Psalter of all the church of Christ in Occident, Protestant as well as Catholic.

Edited by Yohanan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not fluent in Latin so I was only trying to help point out the information I knew. I thank you for your clarification about the texts.

 

-dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

The Accordance module reproduces the two columns in the Stuttgart Biblia Sacra Vulgata. It was, so to say, a given. It doesn't involve a judgement about which translation is better.

 

[Added two hours later]

It is true that it is up to Accordance to choose which text would go into VULG and which into VULG2. This may be open to discussion. This was the status quo that I found when I started tagging the texts for VULG-T and VULG2-T, and I had no objection to it.

[addition ends here]

 

Both texts actually belong to the Vulgate, but they were preferred at different times.

The Vulg text is a fresh translation from Hebrew that Jerome prepared, just as he did with the Prophets. Before he did that, there existed an Old Latin translation out of the LXX Greek, that came to be called Psalterium Romanum. It is not included in the Stuttgart edition. At some point, Jerome revised it and produced what is now in Vulg2. It still is a translation out of the Greek, but it was corrected to improve its Latin syntax and make it easier for the Latin reader to understand. It is likely that somewhere it was also brought closer to Hebrew. Anyway, Jerome was unsatisfied with it, so that later, when in Bethlehem, he produced the Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos. This prevailed for some time in the manuscripts, together with the new translations of the Prophets. Then, around 800 a.D., the monk Alcuin of York, who was in charge of the scriptoria in France where Charlemagne had the Bible copied, went back to the Psalter that is in Vulg2. As the copies were made in France, that Psalter was then called Psalterium Gallicanum. As the money of the emperor could pay for many copies, it gained the upper hand again.

I tagged both texts in Vulg-T and Vulg2-T, and appreciated both. 

 

[Added two hours later]

During the tagging process I became more aware that the text in VULG-T uniformly reflects Jerome's translation habits. To Jerome the Psalterium Gallicanum now in VULG2-T was more like a provisional solution.

However, it is true that the Psalterium Gallicanum was more widely read in the Church, both before Jerome and after Alcuin. It is a much loved text, that provided spritual nourishments to many in the Church. Even its strange Latin came to be loved.

 

Another different issue is the presentation of the text of the Psalterium Gallicanum in the Stuttgart edition. The printed text includes complex additional marks, that are called sigla Origeniana. They were devised by Origen, to mark where the text departs from the Hebrew, either by adding words or by deleting them. I have restored these marks to VULG2-T, so that is reflects more closely the printed Stuttgart edition.

[Addition ends]

Edited by Marco V. Fabbri
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To have it with Strong's or G/K numbers were needed. I'm sure this is not more complicated than to tag it with the morphology. It's looks like it is based on the same basis.

 

Also for the Projekt Vulgata Deutsch this would be very helpful.

 

Greetings

 

Fabian

Edited by Fabian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To have it with Strong's or G/K numbers were needed. I'm sure this is not more complicated than to tag it with the morphology. It's looks like it is based on the same basis.

 

[snip]

 

Greetings

 

Fabian

Fabian, 

 

even though the Strong numbers are useful to many, they are completely different from the morphological tags. The tags are added word by word directly to the Latin text. The Strong numbers are a way to match two different texts word by word. Personally, I have never used the Strong numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Marco,

 

So I know does Accordance match the two different texts itself. But it has to know which word has which number.

 

I don't know the tags for the morph, so this is only an example for the word "Deus" in Gen 1,1.

Gen. 1,1   Deus<morph>Noun masculine singular nominative</morph>

 

To make Strong's tagging then. This is also an example.

Gen. 1,1  Deus<strH>H0430</strH><morph>Noun masculine singular nominative</morph>

 

I'm sure Joel can you explain more about it. For the L.g.s I know the tags but by OakTree this is a secret but I'm sure Accordance gives you the key.

 

Again: I would love to see this in the Vulg-T

 

Greetings

 

Fabian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Accordance cannot now handle texts with both tagging and Strong's numbers. It is also a massive task to add Strong's numbers to a Latin text to connect it to the original Greek and Hebrew texts. There has not been a demand for this, and we have no plans to do so at present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...