The Bible has a very active history through translations, so much so that in past days there was at least one difference in almost every househeld Bible due to erroneous complications to the text. For example, if we are to review the theory that the mark of the beast is indeed 616 as the Greek Revelations states, you have been presented a prime example of the complications shown through a transition of languages.
Here's only one of the countless versions of the Bible out there today...if you're expecting me to continue researching all this, then you'll be severely disappointed. Fact is, there have been a lot of edits so that many phrases have been edited. This does not account for major changes in the Bible, such as removing Gospels or whatever, which you are probably looking for. Either way, wikipedia.org is your friend.
____
The Vulgate Bible is an early 5th century translation of the Bible into Latin made by St. Jerome on the orders of Pope Damasus I. The name Vulgate is derived from the phrase
versio vulgata --- in essence, "the common/popular version." The Vulgates purpose was so that it could be easier understood by the masses, as the predecessors were too complex for the everyday citizen.
Taken from wikipedia.org:
Quote:
Jerome did not completely re-translate the original Greek and Hebrew and exactly how much revision he did is unclear. He certainly translated the Old Testament from the Hebrew and the Gospels from the Greek. To what extent he translated or revised other parts of the New Testament is not known with certainty.
Jerome argued against the canonicity of the Deuterocanonical books and Apocrypha. However, Augustine of Hippo argued for their inclusion in the Bible, and Pope Damasus insisted on it, so the Old Testament content of the Vulgate was similar to that of the Septuagint, which was at that time the translation most widely used by Greek-speaking Christians. However, since Jerome regarded the Deuterocanonical books of secondary importance to the books found in the Hebrew, he did not translate them anew (except for Tobit and parts of Judith). These less than polished Old Latin renderings of the deuterocanonical books and Apocrypha are present in the earliest surviving manuscripts of the whole Vulgate, though their style can still be markedly distinguished from Jerome's.
|
Another quote from wikipedia:
Quote:
|
Over the course of the Middle Ages, the Vulgate had succumbed to the inevitable changes wrought by human error in the countless copying of the text in monasteries across Europe. From its earliest days, readings from the Vetus Latina were introduced. Marginal notes were erroneously interpolated into the text. No one copy was the same as the other as scribes added, removed, misspelled, or mis-corrected verses in the Latin Bible.
|
Attempts were made to revise these errors:
Quote:
|
About 550, Cassiodorus made an attempt at restoring the Vulgate to its original purity. Alcuin of York oversaw efforts to make a corrected Vulgate, which he presented to Charlemagne in 801. Similar attempts were repeated by Theodulphus Bishop of Orleans (787?- 821), Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury (1070-1089), Stephen Harding, Abbot of Cîteaux (1109-1134), and Deacon Nicolaus Maniacoria (about the beginning of the thirteenth century).
|
The Council of Trent reaffirmed that the Vulgate was the sole, authorized Latin text of the Bible. The Clementine Vulgate of 1592 became the standard Bible text of the Roman Rite of Catholic Church until 1979, when the Nova Vulgata was promulgated.
The Nova Vulgata is the commonly accepted Latin version of the text. Still, it is not widely embraced by most conservative Catholics.
Quote:
|
In 2001, the Vatican released the instruction Liturgiam Authenicam, constituting the Nova Vulgata as a point of reference for all translations of the liturgy into English.
|
06-15-06, 09:04 PM
#1
Linear Mode
