New Resource: Clementine Vulgate with Disambiguated Morphology and Reverse Interlinear

What Is It?

The Clementine Vulgate has now been updated with disambiguated morphology and an interlinear that has been aligned with the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament. The Apocryphal and Deuterocanonical portions have been aligned with the LXX.

How It Works?

Open the Clementine Vulgate and scroll over any of the words. The tooltip will provide you with information about the word's morphology. Enable the interlinear ribbon or the inline interlinear and see the text aligned with the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament. The Apocryphal and Deuterocanonical portions as well as the book of Psalms have been aligned with the LXX.

Please note that Judith and Tobit are the only Vulgate books that have no text alignment. Jerome translated these two books from Aramaic versions via an oral Hebrew paraphrase, so there is no original text to align them to. We made the final decision not to align them to anything after we had already started creating the Vulgate text alignment and confirmed by testing that aligning Judith and Tobit to the LXX wouldn’t work. (It wouldn’t make sense anyway, since Jerome didn’t translate the books from Greek.)

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

David Knoll

The Apocryphal and Deuterocanonical portions have been aligned with the LXX.

Am I to understand that in the opinion of Logos the book of Psalms is now part of the Apocrypha and has been degraded to the level of Deuterocanon?

Jacob Cerone

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/840975#Comment_840975

The Apocryphal and Deuterocanonical portions have been aligned with the LXX.

Am I to understand that in the opinion of Logos the book of Psalms is now part of the Apocrypha and has been degraded to the level of Deuterocanon?

You are not, that was an edit that didn't take but has been amended.

David Knoll

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/840977#Comment_840977

but has been amended

When?

Jacob Cerone

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/840981#Comment_840981

David,

I apologize that things may not have been clear in my original post, and I hope that my edit clarified it. Nevertheless, I realize that there may still be some confusion. We have aligned Psalms with the LXX because the translator of the Clementine Vulgate used the book of Psalms from the LXX instead of the Hebrew text, not because it is a part of a different corpus of literature (e.g. Apocryphal or Deuterocanonical).

David Knoll

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/840987#Comment_840987

Oh so you won't include the Versio juxta Hebraicum?

Rick Brannan (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/840991#Comment_840991

Hi David.

We presently do not support two different alignment sources (e.g. LXX and Hebrew) aligned against a single portion of a single text (e.g. Vulgate Psalms). As Jacob explained, the LXX Psalms were used in the alignment because they better represented the source of the translation.

If you're interested in the Vulgate <=> LXX <=> Hebrew differences, one way to do this in L7 would be to open Swete's LXX in an adjoining multiple resource window. Corresponding Word and Corresponding Selection visual filters should help in the examination.

Alternately, open a third multiple resource window for the LHB, and make sure to do the selection in the middle (LXX) window:

David Knoll

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/841026#Comment_841026

thank you Rick but there is a translation from the Hebrew. Couldn't you include that as well? The decision for the Clementine instead of Weber seems odd...

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/840975#Comment_840975

The Apocryphal and Deuterocanonical portions have been aligned with the LXX.
Am I to understand that in the opinion of Logos the book of Psalms is now part of the Apocrypha and has been degraded* to the level of Deuterocanon?

Whether that would be a diminution of some kind is a matter of dispute, but there are plenty of us reading the forums who do/would not appreciate the implication that books that we consider to be Scripture are "degraded" relative to OT books that are not in the Deuterocanon.

*emphasis added

David Knoll

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/841045#Comment_841045

Whether that would be a diminution of some kind is a matter of dispute, but there are plenty of us reading the forums who do/would not appreciate the implication that books that we consider to be Scripture are "degraded" relative to OT books that are not in th

the verb "degrade" was used following the first meaning in the Oxford dictionary :

1 Reduce to lower rank , depose from a position of honour ; spec. deprive formally of rank , office , degree , or ecclesiastical orders , as a punishment . (Foll. by from.) lME.

the "deutero" in deuterocanon seems clear to me.

I do not feel offended when people call the Hebrew Bible "OT" as you do.

I apologise if anyone feels offended by my phrasing. That was not my intention.

Fr Devin Roza

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/841037#Comment_841037

thank you Rick but there is a translation from the Hebrew. Couldn't you include that as well? The decision for the Clementine instead of Weber seems odd...

I would imagine part of this has to do with licensing. The Weber edition from 2007 is a recent critical edition, while the Clementine version from the 16th century is public domain, and thus should be royalty free. For the LXX, Faithlife prefers Swete's version over Rhalf's for royalty-related reasons, even though Rhalf's is a better edition.

But in this case there is also another reason which is worth considering - for better or for worse, for most of the history of the Vulgate, the translation of the Psalms from the LXX has been most commonly used, something reflected in works which cite the Vulgate throughout Church history (cf. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate). The translation of the Vulgate of the Psalms from the LXX thus has a greater value for history of interpretation studies than does the little used translation from the Hebrew (regardless of their respective merits as a translation or text). The same can be said with respect to the Nova Vulgata, which is a better translation and closer to the original Hebrew and Greek, but of lesser value for history of interpretation or for reading the Vulgate with ancient, medieval, and modern authors that quoted it.

David Knoll

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/841090#Comment_841090

But in this case there is also another reason which is worth considering - for better or for worse, for most of the history of the Vulgate, the translation of the Psalms from the LXX has been most commonly used, something reflected in works which cite the Vulgate throughout Church history (cf. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate). The translation of the Vulgate of the Psalms from the LXX thus has a greater value for history of interpretation studies than does the little used translation from the Hebrew (regardless of their respective merits as a translation or text). The same can be said with respect to the Nova Vulgata, which is a better translation and closer to the original Hebrew and Greek, but of lesser value for history of interpretation or for reading the Vulgate with ancient, medieval, and modern authors that cited it.

Thank You Fr Devin Roza. I am of course aware of that, but there should be a balance between the reception history of the text and its usability as a scholarly source. If I use the Reverse Interlinear to figure out how Jerome translates the Hebrew, I am missing important data from the "iuxta Hebraeos". I wonder if one couldn't find a simple solution by including both versions of the Psalms...

Fr Devin Roza

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/841099#Comment_841099

If I use the Reverse Interlinear to figure out how Jerome translates the Hebrew, I am missing important data from the "iuxta Hebraeos". I wonder if one couldn't find a simple solution by including both versions of the Psalms...

Fully agree. Hopefully Faithlife can find a way to include it.

MJ. Smith

Jerome, a small point but consistency helps when using google to find this type of entry ... so the standard "New resource" would be appreciated. See https://wiki.logos.com/Chart_of_features_documentation_and_training_%e2%80%93_under_construction to see why I noticed (near bottom).

Jacob Cerone

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/842660#Comment_842660

Thanks for pointing this out. I've updated the title accordingly.

EastTN

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/842679#Comment_842679

Speaking as someone who last took a formal Latin class during the disco era, I appreciate the new functionality.