CHAT Editiones Vulgatae (was: Person marking on nouns?)
|From:||Ray Brown <ray.brown@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, February 24, 2004, 20:29|
On Monday, February 23, 2004, at 10:45 PM, Ph. D. wrote:
> Ray Brown wrote:
>> Ph. D. wrote:
>>> The Vulgate has "Pater noster qui in caelis *es* . . ." ("Father our who
>>> in heaven art . . . ")
>> Not in either of my copies of the Vulgate, it ain't. Both have:
>> Pater noster qui es in caelis......[snip]
>> What version of the Vulgate are you quoting?
> "qui es in caelis" was the way I learned it years ago, but I thought
> I'd look it up just to be sure. My copy of the Vulgate was published
> in 1983 by Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. The title page also says
> "Editio Tertia Emendata quam paravit Bonifatius Fischer OSB
> cum sociis . . ."
I guess just a coincidence that 'qui in caelis es' is the German word
order. It's true that in Latin the verb does _tend_ to go to the end of
sub-ordinate clauses. But the copula, on the other hand, tends to tuck
itself away in the middle of a clause, whether co-ordinate clause or
> The critical apparatus (is that the correct term?)
Yes - it is; tho some use the Latin 'apparatus criticus'.
> says that some other copies have "qui es in caelis" including the
> Editio Clementina.
Yes - the Clementine Edition certainly does. My complete copy of the
Vulgate is the 5th edition of a 'Nova Edito' of the Bible 'iuxta Vulgatam
Clementinam' published by the Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos in Madrid,
1977. The apparatus criticus gives no alternate reading for Matthew 6 v.9
My other copy is of the New Testament only with the Latin text printed
opposite the Greek text throughout and is the work of the Pontifical
Biblical Institute of the Vatican. My edition is the 9th edition,
published in Rome, 1964. There a long preface (all in Latin) discussing
the various Greek & Latin codices. They seem to have used as their basis
the Clementine Edition (1592) but respelling and correcting where
necessary and the text throughout is accompanied by critical apparatus.
However, in Mathhew 6.9 it just gives:
Pater noster qui es in caelis....
and no alternative noted in the critical apparatus.
I did briefly look on the Internet today and discovered that a full text
of 'Nova Vulgata Bibliorum Sacrorum Editio' is given on the Vatican
It gives: 'Pater noster qui es in caelis..."
However, I soon afterwards came on the www.speedbible.com site which gives
the Bible in many different languages, including the 'Latin Vulgate'. It's
edition of the Vulgate gives:
"Pater noster qui in caelis es...."
Unfortunately neither this site not the Vatican's gives a critical
apparatus with the texts.
In fact, a quick search t the end of the day revealed many sites giving
"Pater noster qui in caelis es...." as well as many others giving "Pater
noster qui es in caelis....", all claiming to quote the Vulgate.
Now, the edition issued by Clement VIII (the Editio Clementina which is
currently the commonly used edition) apparently superseded the Sixtine
Edition of 1590 which in some respects was better than its successor. And
both these editions were attempts to standardize variants that had grown
up in the Middle Ages through copyists' errors.
Work has been going on since 1907 in revising the Vulgate to determine as
accurately as possible Jerome's text to serve as the basis of a more
extended and critical revision. This is a long and costly process - the
number of texts to compare is very large, for example. The whole problem
is discussed in some detail on the "New Advent" site:
At any rate, it is quite clear that we should be more circumspect when say
"The Vulgate says". It is apparent that there are different Vulgate
traditions (just as there are different Greek & Hebrew codices). So no,
you cannot accurately say: 'The Vulgate has "Pater noster qui in caelis
*es* . . ." ', nor can I accurately say: 'The Vulgate has "Pater noster
qui *es* in caelis . . .".
All we can truthfully say is that the Clementine Edition of the Vulgate
has "Pater noster qui es in caelis . . ." , but there are other editions
which have "Pater noster qui in caelis es . . ."
In fact, of course, both mean the same; it's only a matter of style. And
the Greek is no help because it has neither the verb 'to be' nor, indeed,
a relative clause - just the phrase 'en tois ouranois' [in the heavens]
tacked onto the vocative with the definite article:
Pater he:mo:n ho en tois ouranois
Father of-us the [one]in the heavens
Well. I've certainly learnt quite a bit from your quotation - thanks :)
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language." J.G. Hamann, 1760