In praise of the Knox translation? Not so fast...

A recent article over at New Liturgical Movement  by Peter Kwasniewski provides a paean of praise for the Knox translation of the Bible.

In praise of the Knox translation?

Not all commentators on the post however were particularly convinced by Professor Kwasniewski's arguments, pointing out that in fact the Knox translation takes a lot of license at some points, thus representing some of the less desirable twentieth century approaches to translation.

I have to say that I sit somewhere in the middle on this debate: for some purposes and books of Scripture, I find the Knox a wonderful translation.  His translation of Psalm 118 for example, is certainly not at all literal.  But it is lovely just occasionally to read a version that attempts to convey the original Hebrew alphabetic approach to the stanzas.

All the same I do agree with those who suggest that the Knox translation needs to be treated with considerable care, since it doesn't always, in my view, pay due deference to the tradition of the Church on the interpretation of some key verses.

The case of Psalm 2:9

To illustrate this, consider the example of verse 9 of Psalm 2, a verse that will be familiar to many due to its use by Handel in the Messiah.

The Vulgate (and neo-Vulgate) version is:

Reges eos in virga férrea, * et tamquam vas fíguli confrínges eos.

The Douay-Rheims-Challoner renders it fairly literally as:

Thou shalt rule them with a rod of iron, and shalt break them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.

The first phrase of the Knox version, however, is, in this case, quite different:

Thou shalt herd them like sheep with a crook of iron, break them in pieces like earthenware.

In many cases, significant differences between the Knox translation and the Douay-Rheims arise because the former follows the Hebrew Masoretic Text rather than the Septuagint.  That isn't the case here though: the King James Version, for example, is, in this case, very similar to the Douay-Rheims:

Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel

The Hebrew Masoretic Text reflects a fairly strict parallelism between the two phrases: the key word in the first phrase is ra`a` (break, shatter); in the second  naphats (deash to pieces, scatter):

תְּרֹעֵם בְּשֵׁבֶט בַּרְזֶל כִּכְלִי יֹוצֵר תְּנַפְּצֵֽם׃

The Septuagint however seems to represent a different text tradition in this case, and is more ambiguous: the Latin reges (from rego, regere) generally means to rule or govern, Scripture sometimes uses the Greek equivalent (ποιμαίνω or poimainō ) to mean to shepherd or guide:

ποιμανεῖς αὐτοὺς ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ ὡς σκεῦος κεραμέως συντρίψεις αὐτούς

Knox's choice to follow that meaning here, however, almost certainly has its origin in St Jerome's translation from the Hebrew, which interprets the verse as shepherding rather than ruling:

Pasces eos in virga ferrea  ut vas figuli conteres eos 

Christ the good shepherd vs Christ the King

The problem with this approach though, it seems to me, is that it seems to emphasis Christ the priest over Christ the king in a verse that has traditionally been taken as referring to the latter.

I have to say that personally, the image of the potter breaking a flawed creation into pieces, and effectively starting again, doesn't strike me as terribly consonant with the shepherd image.  And it isn't the way the Father's have interpreted the verse, seeing it rather as talking about Christ's kingship. Cassiodorus, for example, suggests that the rod in question is not the shephard's crook but a symbol of kingly power:

Next the manner of his kingship is described...Rod signifies royal power by which the punishment of His correction is banished to sinners.  It is iron, not because God uses a metal rod for vengeance, but iron’s hardness is apt to describe the rigour of justice.  The rod is that of which the psalmist is to speak in Psalm 44: The rod of thy kingdom is a rod of uprightness.  He subsequently explains what he does with this rod; it is the rod which shatters to bring life, the stick which restrains the weak, the scepter which brings the dead to life.  As applied to humans, a rod (virga) is so called because it governs by its force (vi) and does not allow those who strain to break lose.  

Knox, however, having adopted the shepherd image for this verse, then has to carry it through in the three uses of the verse in the book of Revelation, where it it seems to me that the image fits even less well (in each case the left hand column is the Vulgate; middle the Douay-Rheims-Challoner, right hand side the Knox, sourced from Catholicbible.online.

Revelation 2:

26 Et qui vicerit, et custodierit usque in finem opera mea, dabo illi potestatem super gentes,	26 And he that shall overcome, and keep my works unto the end, I will give him power over the nations.	26 Who wins the victory? Who will do my bidding to the last? I will give him authority over the nations;
27 et reget eas in virga ferrea, et tamquam vas figuli confringentur,	27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron, and as the vessel of a potter they shall be broken,	27 to herd them like sheep with a crook of iron, breaking them in pieces like earthenware;
28 sicut et ego accepi a Patre meo: et dabo illi stellam matutinam.	28 As I also have received of my Father: and I will give him the morning star.	28 the same authority which I myself hold from my Father. And the Star of morning shall be his.

Revelation 12:

5 Et peperit filium masculum, qui recturus erat omnes gentes in virga ferrea: et raptus est filius ejus ad Deum, et ad thronum ejus,

5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.

5 She bore a son, the son who is to herd the nations like sheep with a crook of iron; and this child of hers was caught up to God, right up to his throne,

Revelation 19:

14 Et exercitus qui sunt in cælo, sequebantur eum in equis albis, vestiti byssino albo et mundo.	14 And the armies that are in heaven followed him on white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.	14 the armies of heaven followed him, mounted on white horses, and clad in linen, white and clean.
15 Et de ore ejus procedit gladius ex utraque parte acutus, ut in ipso percutiat gentes. Et ipse reget eas in virga ferrea: et ipse calcat torcular vini furoris iræ Dei omnipotentis.	15 And out of his mouth proceedeth a sharp two edged sword; that with it he may strike the nations. And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of God the Almighty.	15 From his mouth came a two-edged sword, ready to smite the nations; he will herd them like sheep with a crook of iron. He treads out for them the wine-press, whose wine is the avenging anger of almighty God.
16 Et habet in vestimento et in femore suo scriptum: Rex regum et Dominus dominantium.	16 And he hath on his garment, and on his thigh written: KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.	16 And this title is written on his cloak, over his thigh, The King of kings, and the Lord of lords.

In praise of multiple translations

The moral of the story, it seems to me, is never rely on just one translation, but use several if at all possible, advice that Professor Kwasniewski in fact opens his post with, quoting from St Augustine.

The Septuagint and the contest between Judaism and Christianity in the early years of the Church

As it has been a while since I said anything about my reasons for preferring the Septuagint over the Hebrew Masoretic Text for the interpretation of the psalms, and the basis of some of my comments on the differences between the two versions, I thought it might be helpful to make a few comments here, and draw my readers attention to some recent books and articles on this subject.

The Jewish reaction to Christianity

The early tensions between the infant Church and the early Judaism are no secret: they are chronicled in the Book of Acts and the letters of St Paul, and attested to at length by the Fathers.

The combined forces of the existence of Christianity and above all the destruction of the Temple forced Judaism to change, leading to the development of the rabbinical Judaism we know today.

In Acts, we are told of the gradual process of discarding Jewish practices as requirements for Christian converts.  The early Church Fathers took this much Father, actively condemning the continuing use of Judaic practices by Christians.

But the Jewish faith, too, embarked on a process of reassessment in this same period, one of the results of which was the discarding of the Septuagint at first in favour of new translations into the Greek, and then their gradual replacement by the exclusive use of Hebrew instead.  There was also a process, at this time, within Judaism, of definition of which books of Scripture were considered canonical that excluded any thought not to have been written in Hebrew.

Texts and prayers on both sides of the divide attest both to ongoing tensions between the two religions, and ongoing Christian attempts to convert Jews to Christianity. Indeed, contemporary sociologist Rodney Stark has argued that a majority of converts up until the fifth century AD were in fact Jewish, and that the often harsh sounding denunciations of each other reflect an attempt by the respective hierarchies to put a stop to a certain permeability on the part of the laity, with some people drifting between the two camps!

The Septuagint's importance to Christianity

The importance of the Greek translation of the Old Testament has largely been neglected until recently in the Western Church, due in no small part to the legacy of St Jerome, who successfully campaigned for the adoption of translations based on the Hebrew instead of the ancient Greek.  The one book on which he was not successful is the psalms, where Latin versions based on the Greek were too entrenched liturgically, even at that early date, to change.

Recent scholarship, stimulated in no small part by the Dead Sea Scrolls, is changing all that.

For much of the twentieth century, the prevailing view of the Latin Vulgate was that it was based on a Septuagint that was often badly translated, and reflected an often corrupt text.  In contrast, it was thought that the Hebrew Masoretic Text, even though the earliest surviving manuscripts date only from the eighth century AD, represented, in the main, a faithfully transmitted version of 'the original text'.

Dead Sea Scrolls scholarship, however, has lead to the realisation that in fact there were several different text traditions of Scripture prevalent at the time of Our Lord; that  the Greek Septuagint, and not the Hebrew was widely used at this time, and the exclusive basis for the quotes from the Old Testament cited in the New.  Far from being corrupt or badly translated, modern scholarship is beginning to realise that the Septuagint often preserves an older and at least equally legitimate version of the text.

A useful and easy to read summary of the case for the Septuagint can be found in Timothy Michael Law's When God Spoke Greek The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible (Oxford University Press, 2013).  Law's book is primarily directed at Protestants, making the case for a rethink of Luther's rejection of the apocrypha and preference for translations directly from the Hebrew.  Accordingly, it spends rather more time than a Catholic reader will find necessary on the case for the apocrypha, and rather less time on the role of the Magisterium in the formation of the modern Bible.  Nonetheless, it is a useful popular presentation of some of the key results of recent research, particularly in making the case that the New Testament relies exclusively on the Septuagint, rather than the precursors to the Masoretic Text (MT), in its quotes of the Old Testament.

Law also draws out the understanding in the early Church that the commissioning of the Septuagint in the centuries before Christ was seen as a providential event, a necessary foundation for the Gospel to be preached to the whole (known) world, which was at that time was essentially Greek-speaking.  A recent article by Dawn Eden in Pastoral and Homiletic Review explores the way that Pope Benedict XVI advocated for a recovery of this view of the Septuagint as a monument of tradition (though she doesn't use that terminology) whose theological perspective should be respected as part of revelation in his theological work and Magisterial teaching.

Text manipulation?

A more controversial question is whether the Hebrew Masoretic Text as it exists today reflects deliberate manipulation by early Jewish editors in reaction to the use of certain texts by early Christians, as a number of the early Church Fathers, such as Justin Martyr, claimed.

One contemporary school of thought argues that in the main, the Dead Sea Scrolls show that many of the differences between the MT and the Septuagint reflect different text traditions, or families of manuscripts, rather than deliberate edits to the text.  The critical change, in this view (subscribed to, for example, by Law, cited above), was not text manipulation, but rather the decision to move away from tolerating a plurality of text possibilities and settle on one definitive, and ultimately Hebrew version.   This school of thought acknowledges that the Septuagint's readings often reflect a theology more congenial to Christianity, and that this may have influenced choices, but goes no further than that.

A second school of thought, however, points out that the differences between the proto-Masoretic Text manuscripts discovered this century, and the received (medieval) version of the Hebrew of the MT may be relatively small in number, but they are extremely significant in theological import.  One of the key advocates of this school of thought is Dr Margaret Barker.

Personally, I think that the view that there was some deliberate text selection and manipulation at work in direct reaction to Christianity is extremely plausible, and some of the posited examples of it in the literature are compelling.  It certainly wouldn't be the first time that faced with a text that seemed to support one side of the debate, the other sought to find and even create support for its view through its own!  Nonetheless, it has to be acknowledged that Septuagint studies in the light of the Dead Sea Scrolls are still at a relatively underdeveloped stage, and much more work remains to be done in this area.

It should also be noted that the adoption by the Church of St Jerome's translations from the Hebrew did have one positive benefit in providing an agreed text to facilitate dialogue between Christians and Jews, and a number of key works by the Fathers and Theologians reflect that ongoing evangelizing project.

Nonetheless, the latest research is stimulating a rethink of much of the twentieth century scholarship around Bible translation.  At the very least, the Neo-Vulgate, a product of the period before the impact of Dead Seas Scrolls scholarship, seems likely to be deemed at some point in the not too distant future, a product of its time, rather than a lasting monument of the Church.

Why is psalm 109 used for Marian feasts? Ps 109/5

Georgia, c1125

Today’s verse speaks of the divine - rather than human - begetting of Our Lord.  So why is it used in the Office of Our Lady and for Vespers of her feasts?

It is worth noting first that this verse in the Septuagint and Vulgate bears little or no resemblance to the Hebrew Text as it has come down to us, as Pope Benedict explains:

“In the original Hebrew text a reference was made to the mustering of the army to which the people generously responded, gathering round their sovereign on the day of his coronation. The Greek translation of The Septuagint that dates back to between the second and third centuries B.C. refers however to the divine sonship of the king, to his birth or begetting on the part of the Lord. This is the interpretation that has been chosen by the Church, which is why the verse reads like this: “Yours is princely power in the day of your birth, in holy splendour; before the daystar, like the dew, I have begotten you”.

The RSV accordingly renders this verse:

“Your people will offer themselves freely on the day you lead your host upon the holy mountains.  From the womb of the morning like dew your youth will come to you.”

It is not unreasonable, however, to infer that the “original” Hebrew has in fact been corrupted in order to avoid granting the Messiah inheritance of his status by right of birth and eternal generation.  So ignore Coverdale and any other protestant translations of this psalm in your consideration of it!

Here is the text as the Church reads it:

Tecum princípium in die virtútis tuæ in splendóribus sanctórum: *ex útero ante lucíferum génui te.
μετὰ σοῦ ἡ ἀρχὴ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ τῆς δυνάμεώς σου ἐν ταῖς λαμπρότησιν τῶν ἁγίων ἐκ γαστρὸς πρὸ ἑωσφόρου ἐξεγέννησά σε
With you is the principality in the day of your strength: in the brightness of the saints: from the womb before the day star I begot you.

Looking at the Latin

Tecum principium (accusative, governed by cum) = with you [is] the sovereignty/dominion

In die (abl, governed by in) virtútis (gen) tuæ = in the day of your power

The first two phrases, then, present the saviour as awe-inspiring.

in splendóribus (in +abl, plural) sanctorum (genitive) = in the splendour of the saints

St John Chrysostom sees this phrase as softening the depiction presented to us:

“Lest he give the impression that he is only fearsome, the psalmist shows as well his mild and kindly character in the words, In the glories of the holy ones. This is a mark of his power, making them glorious like that, as Paul also indicated in saying, "He will transform the body of our lowliness so that it may be conformed to the body of his glory."

This idea of exalting the lowly also hints at the Marian dimension of the verse, taken up in the next phrase.

ex útero = from the womb (abl, governed by ex)

Though this phrase seems to suggest the Incarnation, it should really be viewed figuratively, as St Robert Bellarmine explains:

“By the womb is meant the secret and intimate essence of the Deity; and, though the womb is to be found in woman only, still it is applied to the Father, to show more clearly the consubstantiality of the Son with him, as also to show that God needed not the cooperation of woman to bring forth and produce. Himself begot and gave birth. As Isaias says, "Shall not I, that made others to bring forth children, myself bring forth, saith the Lord."

ante lucíferum = before the morning star (accusative, governed by ante)

St Robert continues:

"Here we have a proof of the eternity of Christ; for he was born before the day star, and, consequently, before all created things; but he named the day star, for he himself, as the Son of God, is the increate light. For he is the true light, that enlighteneth every man and angel.”

génui te – I bore/begot you (present indicative perfect of gigno, I beget)

Translations

The Monastic Diurnal offers a rather free translation of this verse: “Thine is princely rule in the day of Thy power in holy splendour: from the womb before the day-star have I begotten Thee”

Brenton’s translation from the Septuagint is a more literal one: With thee is dominion in the day of thy power, in the splendours of thy saints: I have begotten thee from the womb before the morning.

Key vocab

principium, ii, n. the beginning; the sum, substance, content; sovereignty, princely, power, dominion
splendor, oris, m. brightness, splendor; glory, brightness, i.e., grace, favor.
uterus, i, m. the womb
lucifer, feri, in. the morning-star, the day-star.
gigno, genui, genitum, ere 3 to beget.

So why is this psalm used on Marian feasts?

We have seen above that this verse then attests to our Lord’s divinity, his eternal generation, rather than the Incarnation as such.

Nonetheless, this should immediately remind us of Our Lady’s title as theotokos, or “God bearer”.

And in fact St Augustine argues that the expression ‘before the morning star’:

“…is used both figuratively and literally, and was thus fulfilled. For the Lord was born at night from the womb of the Virgin Mary; the testimony of the shepherds does assert this, who were keeping watch over their flock. Luke 2:7-8 So David: O Thou, my Lord, who sittest at the right hand of my Lord, whence are You my Son, except because, From the womb before the morning star I have begotten You?”

And indeed, the Church places this verse before us at Midnight Mass for Christmas, in the Gradual.



You can find the next part of this series here.

Is Psalm 109 the most important psalm in the psalter?

De Grebber, 1645

Today I want to resume my series aimed at aiding those wanting to pray the Office in Latin, or to understand the psalms they are praying better. Sunday Vespers seems an appropriate place to start, given that it is probably one of the most commonly prayed hours of the Office.

Psalm 109 (110)

Today a brief introduction to Psalm 109, focusing on its importance.  I'll then post a series looking at it in detail, verse by verse.

The case for Psalm 109's importance rests on three main grounds: it is the most frequently cited of all of the psalms in the New Testament; it has a pre-eminent place in the Office; and it is very theologically dense, containing several important prophesies, and rebutting several heresies.

These layers of meaning are not at all obvious though, from a first reading of the text.  Have a read through, and ideally, listen to a recording so you become familiar with how the Latin should sound.

The text (Vulgate and Douay Rheims)

Dixit Dominus Domino meo: Sede a dextris meis,
The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand,

donec ponam inimicos tuos scabellum pedum tuorum.
until I make your enemies your footstool

Virgam virtutis tuæ emittet Dominus ex Sion : dominare in medio inimicorum tuorum
The Lord will send forth the sceptre of your power out of Sion: rule in the midst of your enemies.

Tecum principium in die virtutis tuæ in splendoribus sanctorum: ex utero, ante luciferum, genui te.
With you is the principality in the day of your strength: in the brightness of the saints: from the womb before the day star I begot you.

Juravit Dominus, et non pœnitebit eum : Tu es sacerdos in æternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech.
The Lord has sworn, and he will not repent: You are a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech.

Dominus a dextris tuis; confregit in die iræ suæ reges.
The Lord at your right hand has broken kings in the day of his wrath.

Judicabit in nationibus, implebit ruinas; conquassabit capita in terra multorum.
He shall judge among nations, he shall fill ruins: he shall crush the heads in the land of many

De torrente in via bibet; propterea exaltabit caput.
He shall drink of the torrent in the way: therefore shall he lift up the head.

The most frequently cited psalm in Scripture

This is a hard psalm to interpret correctly, as we learn from Scripture itself. Jewish tradition clearly interpreted this psalm as referring to the Messiah, and Our Lord uses this fact: the synoptic Gospels all tell the story of Jesus citing it to the Pharisees but using it to refute their ideas about who the Christ was and to assert his divinity.

In fact, Psalm 109 (110)'s main claim to being the most important of all the psalms lies in the fact that it of all the psalms, it is the most quoted in the New Testament, used in a variety of different contexts, including that verse alluding to the mysterious figure of Melchizedech that is particularly important to the theology of the priesthood set out in the Letter to the Hebrews.

And the fathers, Theologians and Saints have seen other layers of meaning in it in relation not only to the Incarnation, but also to the Ascension and Resurrection.  These layers of meaning need, then, to be teased out for us by a verse by verse look at the text.

In the Office

The many citations of the psalm in Scripture are in turn reflected in its use in the Office: in the traditional Benedictine and Roman Offices, Psalm opens Sunday Vespers, and is used for pretty much every major feast of the Church's year. It also features in the Office of Our Lady.

Theological importance

Why is it used so frequently though? The answer is that it is very theologically dense. In summary, the psalm is generally interpreted as prophesying our Lord’s Incarnation; setting out both his divinity and humanity; telling of his kingship and priesthood; and prophesying his Passion and ultimate triumph.

Pope Benedict XVI considered this psalm last in his recent General Audience series:

“Today I would like to end my catechesis on the prayer of the Book of Psalms by meditating on one of the most famous of the “royal Psalms”, a Psalm that Jesus himself cited and that the New Testament authors referred to extensively and interpreted as referring to the Messiah, to Christ. It is Psalm 110 according to the Hebrew tradition, 109 according to the Graeco-Latin one, a Psalm very dear to the ancient Church and to believers of all times. This prayer may at first have been linked to the enthronement of a Davidic king; yet its meaning exceeds the specific contingency of an historic event, opening to broader dimensions and thereby becoming a celebration of the victorious Messiah, glorified at God’s right hand.”

This psalm is also extremely important in countering a number of heresies, which though long ago condemned, keep coming back.  St John Chrysostom draws out the battle lines:

“Let us be alert, I beseech you, and concentrate: the psalm tells us of extremely important principles, not with one form of heresy in mind but many and varied. In fact, it joins battle with Jews, Paul of Samosata, the followers of Arius, of Marcion, the Manicheans, and those professing unbelief in the resurrection. Since, therefore, the battle line is drawn up against such opponents, we need many eyes to get a clear view of the maneuvers. In public games, you see, even if any of the tricks performed in them is overlooked, no harm comes to the spectator; that crowd, after all, has assembled not for instruction but for enjoyment. Here, on the contrary, if you do not pay close attention to the quarter whence the enemy directs his attack and we counter him, you would suffer no inconsiderable damage. To avoid incurring this, therefore, rouse your mind and keep your hearing sharp. The Jews we counter first, and direct our forces against them, taking the inspired author as ally from these words of his. Our assertion, you see, that the verse clearly refers to Christ they do not accept, fabricating some other meaning by contrast. So let us first refute their argument, and then establish our own. Let us for a start ask them at this point, who is this righteous man's Lord?”

Translating Psalm 109

The psalm is often said to be extremely difficult to translate.

Well only, in my opinion, if you insist on using the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) as your base!

Unsurprisingly given its Messianic importance, the version of the Hebrew that has come down to us from Jewish sources, the Hebrew Masoretic Text shows signs of text tampering. Contemporary commentator David Ladouceur, for example, normally a defender of the MT, notes for example that “The corrupt Hebrew text with its unusual poetic images pose many unsettled difficulties.”

The very fact that the text appears to be one of those subject to anti-Christian adjustments is another argument for its importance!

The Septuagint and Vulgate translations, by contrast to the Hebrew, are reasonably straightforward as we shall see as we go through it verse by verse.

You can find the next part in this mini-series on Psalm 109, looking at verse 1 in detail, here.  In the meantime, please do leave a comment if you have any questions or reactions to this...

Psalm 109

Vulgate	Douay-Rheims
Psalmus David	A psalm for David.
1 Dixit Dóminus Dómino meo: * Sede a dextris meis:	The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand,
2  Donec ponam inimícos tuos, * scabéllum pedum tuórum.	until I make your enemies your footstool.
3  Virgam virtútis tuæ emíttet Dóminus ex Sion: * domináre in médio inimicórum tuórum.	2 The Lord will send forth the sceptre of your power out of Sion: rule in the midst of your enemies.
4  Tecum princípium in die virtútis tuæ in splendóribus sanctórum: * ex útero ante lucíferum génui te.	3 With you is the principality in the day of your strength: in the brightness of the saints: from the womb before the day star I begot you.
5 Jurávit Dóminus, et non pœnitébit eum: * Tu es sacérdos in ætérnum secúndum órdinem Melchísedech.	4 The Lord has sworn, and he will not repent: You are a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech.
6 Dóminus a dextris tuis, * confrégit in die iræ suæ reges.	5 The Lord at your right hand has broken kings in the day of his wrath.
7  Judicábit in natiónibus, implébit ruínas: * conquassábit cápita in terra multórum.	6 He shall judge among nations, he shall fill ruins: he shall crush the heads in the land of many.
8  De torrénte in via bibet: * proptérea exaltábit caput.	7 He shall drink of the torrent in the way: therefore shall he lift up the head.

Scriptural and liturgical uses

NT Refs	Mt 22:44; 26:64; Mk 12:36, 14:62, 16:19; Lk 20:42; Acts 2:34-35; Rom 8:34; Heb 1:13; 1 Pet 3:22 (v1-2), Heb5:6, 6:20, 7:21, Rom 11:29 (v5)
RB cursus	Sunday Vespers+Ant, v1 (2285)
Monastic feasts etc	All commons/feasts for vespers AN: v1: 4853, 5441, 5442, 1434, 3522,
Responsories	Confessor dr bp v3,1: 7046; 7749;
Roman pre 1911	Sunday Vespers
Ambrosian	Sunday Vespers
Brigittine	Sunday Vespers
Maurist	Sunday Vespers
Thesauris schemas	A: Sunday Vespers; B: Sunday Matins; C: Sunday Matins wk 2 ; D: Sunday Vespers
Roman post 1911	1911-62: Sunday Vespers . 1970: Sunday Vespers
Mass propers (EF)	Nativity (midnight): GR (v3, 1); CO v3 Confessor bishop: AL (v4)

Working from the Vulgate: three good reasons

Most contemporary Scripture scholars tend to take the Greek New Testament, or the Hebrew (generally  the Masoretic Text) as their starting points.  By contrast, on this blog I generally plan to focus primarily (though certainly not exclusively) on the Latin (Clementine) Vulgate text of Scripture. 

Why? 

There are in my view three good reasons for starting from the Vulgate.

1.  Scripture is (mostly) not written in stone: rather the Church has an officially approved version(s) of it, and it is in Latin.

Christians tend to think of 'the Bible' as a fixed text.  The reality is rather different. 

The Bible has been passed down to us in manuscripts copied by fallible scribes who could make errors.  Some of the books of the Bible went through several editorial compilations/drafts, and different traditions have survived in different manuscript families, resulting for example, in legitimate text variants between the 'Septuagint/Vulgate' tradition and the modern-day 'Hebrew' Bible (that is, the Masoretic Text, the oldest manuscript of which dates from the middle ages).  And some of the books of the Old Testament may not have been composed in Hebrew at all, but Aramaic and other languages, so have been subjected to a translation process.

What books of the Bible constitute the canon of Scripture is the result of Tradition and Magisterial decisions. Translations fall into the same category: the Church has always been aware that translation decisions can distort the meaning of Scripture, and thus reserved the right to approve translations for various purposes to itself.

And because the Catholic Church retains Latin as its official language, the official, standard version of its Scripture is actually in Latin, not Greek or Hebrew.  Accordingly, while we can properly draw on other languages to throw light on the meaning of the text, the proper Catholic starting point is the Latin.

2. But which version of the Latin?  The Vulgate has withstood the test of time.

Over the centuries there has been greater and lesser degrees of satisfaction with the version of the Latin used in the liturgy.  Attempts have been made to classicize first the hymns of the Breviary, and in the twentieth century the psalter itself.  But sooner or later, general use has reverted to the Vulgate.  Why is that?

Within the Church, there are today three main, 'official' base texts for Scripture.

The first chronologically and perhaps in terms of priority is the Greek, consisting of the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament made from the third century before Our Lord onwards, and the New Testament as it has come down to us in that language. The Septuagint was originally approved by the Jewish hierarchy (though repudiated in the second century in reaction to Christianity's appropriation of it), was widely used at the time of Our Lord, and is extensively quoted in the New Testament.  Recent scholarship arising from the Dead Sea Scrolls has led to a renewed interest in the Septuagint, because some of the manuscripts found there attest both to the integrity of the Septuagint's manuscript tradition and translation, and to the truth of early Christian allegations of deliberate alteration of the Hebrew Masoretic Text to remove passages that supported Christian tradition. Greek Scripture continues to be used liturgically in Rome and in the Eastern Catholic (and Orthodox) Churches.

The second key text is the Vulgate translation largely made by St Jerome (from the Hebrew in the case of the Old Testament except for the psalms). The Vulgate has stood the test of time, continuing to be used in the '1962', or traditional versions of the liturgy, and the subject of a number of affirmations as to its use by the Magisterium.

The Council of Trent stated that:

“Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever… 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.” (Fourth Session)

Vatican I reaffirmed this, stating that:

“The complete books of the old and the new Testament with all their parts, as they are listed in the decree of the said Council and as they are found in the old Latin Vulgate edition, are to be received as sacred and canonical.”

The third is the 'neo-Vulgate' authorised by Blessed Pope John Paul II. This is the current official text of the Catholic Church, used in the novus ordo/Ordinary Form liturgy, and as the base text for translations into other languages.  The Neo-Vulgate, promulgated in 1979, in effect displaces the Clementine Vulgate - but the older Vulgate version of the Vulgate continues to be approved for use in the liturgy courtesy of Summorum Pontificum and previous decrees. 

The main problem with the neo-Vulgate is that it reflects the state of Biblical scholarship at the time it was made.  In most cases the changes it makes move the text closer to the Hebrew 'Masoretic Text', accepting the view that had been building since the Reformation that the Septuagint translators often misunderstood the Hebrew and made frequent errors.  Unfortunately, since that time the scholastic consensus has largely moved on due to study of the Dead Sea Scrolls, with a new found respect for the integrity of the Septuagint/Vulgate, displacing the views that prevailed in the first half of the twentieth century and beyond.

3.  The Vulgate is reflected in the tradition.

A third key reason for using the Vulgate is that this is the version of Scripture that has become part of the Latin tradition. 

If we want to understand how the Church has traditionally interpreted a text, to adopt a 'hermaneutic of continuity', we need to look to the 'monuments of tradition'.  Hundreds, even thousands of chant settings of verses in Office antiphons and other liturgical texts attest to traditional interpretations of the texts. 

In addition, it is the Vulgate that the Western Fathers and Theologians of the Church have generally worked from: using the Neo-Vulgate instead, as the excellent Fr Hunwicke has pointed out, can render their commentaries meaningless.