The Latin Bible.

[gigas phoberos]

Is the Latin Bible written in Medieval Latin? As a newbie I found that i was able to understand more than i thought
i would be able. Seems like it would be a great way to learn Latin. But why is there no punctuation?

[dlb]

Here is the body of an e-mail which I received concerning Latin Bibles. It might not answer your question but it is insightful.
I believe, but willing to stand corrected, that at the time Jerome did his translation there were no/few punctuation marks available/in use.


I understand your confusion in this matter. I suffered the same thing a few years back when trying to choose the proper version of the Latin Scriptures for my studies. At least once per month someone emails me with this particular question. This is prompting me to post an informational article on my website to address this issue. I will do this in the near future if possible. For now, here is my take on the situation at hand.

There are three main "versions" of the Vulgate on the market today. I will address them in no particular order.

The first- Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem otherwise known as the "Stuttgart Vulgate". This version is a critical attempt to restore the Vulgate as close to St. Jerome's original work. It is the work of Catholic and Protestant scholars, and includes an extensive critical apparatus. The critical apparatus is useful for scholars, but useless for layfolk who just want the bible in Latin for devotional reading. Spelling is medieval and there is no punctuation, which makes it a bit more difficult to read. A nice edition to have on your shelf, but if I could have only one version of the Vulgate, this would not be it.

The second- Nova Vulgata Bibliorum Sacrorum Editio or the "New Vulgate". This version is the latest "official version" that has been prepared by the Church. It is a revision of the Clementine Vulgate. The main changes are removal of the latter portion 1 John 5:7 (due to a debate among scholars that it was not in the original manuscripts) and many changes throughout to conform the Vulgate to the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. It has been criticized widely for the manner is which it was prepared.

The third- Biblia Sacra juxta Vulgatam Clementinam (this title of this edition may vary) known as the "Clementine Vulgate". This is the version that I recommend. This edition basically "grew up" in the Church and was corrected and protected over many hundreds of years. In the late 1500's, Pope Clement VIII called for the preparation of an edition of the Vulgate that would be the definitive edition to overcome the many other editions that were in circulation claiming to be authentic. Pope Clement was continuing the work that Pope Sixtus had already started by promulgating his edition. Since it was was still the official edition of the Church when the traditional Missal and Breviary were being used, it is in conformity with these (although spelling and punctuation could vary slightly from edition to edition)

Here are a few different links for the Clementine edition: an inexpensive edition- Link 1
a very popular edition with many extras- Link 2
a new edition with the Clementine text and the English Douay Rheims- Link 3



I own all of the editions listed above (except the one shown at "Link 3") and many more. If you need any more information on these editions or others, please ask. I have only given you a glimpse of what is available out there.

[cantator]

The third- Biblia Sacra juxta Vulgatam Clementinam (this title of this edition may vary) known as the "Clementine Vulgate". This is the version that I recommend.

This edition is the one I own and read. I second the recommendation.

Best,

dp

[adrianus]

But why is there no punctuation?

I suspect that some later editions of the bible were punctuated in a minimalist way, not because various systems of punctuation didn't exist (they did) but because they were somewhat subjective and might alter an interpretation. Jerome used various punctuation symbols and changed his mind between readings, I understand. That it was safer to minimally punctuate may have been the thinking.

Suspicor ut interpunctiones in quibusdam editionibus serioribus parcè adhiberentur, non quòd signa apprehensibilia deerant (erant quidem) at quòd aliquantùm subjectivus fuit usus interpunctionum et capax sensûs mutandi. Sanctus Hieronymus modo proprio suo interpunctiones scribebat, ut credo, quas inter lectiones variabat. Securius forsit erat interpunctiones eliminari, si ullo modo licuerit, ut censere poterant.

[Essorant]

The only edition I have is the Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem and never had any problems with it, especially not on behalf of there being no punctuation. Remember the original Hebrew and Greek didn't have the punctuation, therefore, having no punctuation is better since it allows the reader to experience the text without the subjective decision of a scholar poking up the text with a bunch of his punctuation-marks. For the most part, it is easy to read, but for the parts where punctuation may determine one sense or the other, I think the reader ought to make the judgement about it rather than an editor punctuating his judgement into the text.