Breviary Psalter variations: drilling into Psalm 1

I have a guest at the Sabine Farm at the moment, an erudite priest friend with whom I can actually work directly in Latin as we discuss interesting topics.

This morning our conversation drifted over our morning post-Mass coffee to various versions of the Psalter found in sundry editions of the book priests have to read ever day, that is either the older Breviarium Romanum or the present Liturgia Horarum.

I began dragging volumes from the Sabine bookshelves and, as we read, we found some interesting variations through history.

Priests who pay attention to what version of the prayers they must say to fulfill their obligation will sometimes debate among themselves the merits and drawbacks of different breviaries and their psalters.  Some abhor the Pius XII version of the psalms approved for liturgical use in 1945 and which were published in the Breviarium Romanum.  Some swear by it, because the Latin is better in many ways.

The history of psalters is horrendously complex, but a few comments can help you sort through what follows.

Around 383 St. Jerome was in Rome working for Pope Damasus.  He did a revision of an old Latin psalter, (perhaps "Jerome I") from a text pre-dating the LXX (Septuagint – a later Greek version of the Old Testament).  We don’t know much about this version.  But when Damasus died in 384, Jerome went to the Holy Land.  In 390 he revised an old Latin psalter in light of a Hebrew text that had diacritical marks.  This version of the psalter is now called the "Gallican", (Gallicanum or perhaps "Jerome II") because it seems that Alcuin got hold of it and put it in his Bible in the 9th c.  A bit later, Jerome would make another version based on Hebrew, working with the help of Aquila and Symmachus (Iuxta Hebraeos – perhaps "Jerome III").

Then there is the Roman Psalter, used, obviously, in Rome.  It is older than the Gallican Psalter.  Some think that this was the psaltar revised in Rome by Jerome, but that probably isn’t the case.  This Roman Psalter is related to a psalter from Milan and to a Mozarabic Psalter.  The Milanese psalter is what St. Augustine used in N. Africa, though he touched up his version a bit. The most complete manuscripts of the old Roman is probably in a line of English manuscripts, which suggests that this is the version brought to England when St. Gregory the Great sent missionaries.

The Council of Trent had commanded a unified version of the Bible, the Vulgata which after various redactions, resulted in in 1592, in an edition we call the Sisto-Clementine, after the Popes who promulgated it.  Sixtus V put out an edition in 1590 and Clement VIII redid it in 1592, ’93, and ’98). This was used in the Church as its official text until 1969 when the New Vulgate was released by Paul VI. Pius X had established a commission to revise the Sisto-Clementine Vulgate.  An exception, however, came in 1945 when Pius XII replaced the psalms in the Sisto-Clementine with a new version, translated directly from Hebrew in a more "classical style" of Latin.

The New-Vulgate has gained status among scholars (the comments of H.E. Bishop Trautman) especially when it substituted the old Sisto-Clementine in the bilingual Greek-Latin edition of "Nestle-Aland".  Also, the University of Navarre uses it in their editions of books of the Bible.  The Congregation for Divine Worship issued the Liturgia Horarum in 1971, reissued in the second edition in 1986 (the current edition).  The Benedictine monk at Solesmes use the Neo-Vulgate Psalter.

Effectively, the version used by the Fathers of the Church was generally some form of the Vetus Latina, the "Roman" Psalter which comes to us in the branch from Milan.

In any event, this morning over coffee Father made his argument in favor of the Pius XII psalms with a comparison of Psalm 1 (a good place to start).

One has to balance elements like rhythm and euphony (essential when you pronounce or sing the prayer) and style with meaning/content.  The concreteness, or lack, of images, is something to consider. 

I grant this will be more interesting to those of you who know Latin.   But at the Sabine Farm, we know Latin… at least this morning.

Have a look:


Psalterium Romanum

Sisto-Clementine Vulgate

Neo-Vulgata

1945 Psalter of Pius XII

St. Augustine’s version snipped from en. ps 1 – "Veronese"

1. Beatus uir qui non abiit in consilio impiorum et in uia peccatorum non stetit et in cathedra pestilentiae non sedit.

 

1. Beatus vir qui non abiit in consilio impiorum et in via peccatorum non stetit et in cathedra derisorum non sedit

 

1. Beatus vir, qui non abiit in consilio impiorum et in via peccatorum non stetit et in conventu derisorum non sedit,

 

1. Beatus vir, qui non sequitur consilium impiorum, Et in via peccatorum non ingreditur, Et in conventu protervorum non sedet;

 

Beatus uir qui non abiit in consilio impiorum et in uia peccatorum non stetit et in cathedra pestilentiae non sedit.

2. Sed in lege Domini fuit uoluntas eius et in lege eius meditabitur die ac nocte.

 

2. sed in lege Domini voluntas eius et in lege eius meditabitur die ac nocte

 

2. sed in lege Domini voluntas eius, et in lege eius meditabitur die ac nocte,

 

2. Sed in lege Domini voluptas eius est, Et de lege eius meditatur die ac nocte.

 

sed in lege domini fuit uoluntas eius, et in lege eius meditabitur die ac nocte

3. Et erit tamquam lignum quod plantatum est secus decursus aquarum quod fructum suum dabit in tempore suo

Et folium eius non decidet et omnia quaecumaue fecerit prosperabuntur

 

3. et erit tamquam lignum transplantatum iuxta rivulos aquarum quod fructum suum dabit in tempore suo

et folium eius non defluet et omne quod fecerit prosperabitur

3. Et erit tamquam lignum plantatum secus decursus aquarum, quod fructum suum dabit in tempore suo;

et folium eius non defluet et omnia quaecumque faciet prosperabuntur.

3. Et est tamquam arbor Plantatum iuxta rivos aquarum, Quae fructum praebet tempore suo,

Cuiusque folia non marcescunt, Et quaecumque facit, prosepere procedunt.

et erit tamquam lignum quod plantatum est secundum decursus aquarum

et folium eius non decidet et omnia quaecumque fecerit prosperabuntur

 

4. non sic impii non sic sed tamquam puluis quem proicit uentus a facie terrae.

 

4. non sic impii sed tamquam pulvis quem proicit ventus

4. non sic impii, non sic, sed tamquam pulvis, quem proicit ventus.

4. Non sic impii, non sic; Sed tamquam palea, quam dissipat ventus.

non sic impii, non sic, sed tamquam puluis quem proicit uentus a facie terrae.

5. ideo non resurgunt impii in iudicio neque peccatores in consilio iustorum

 

5. propterea non resurgent impii in iudicio neque peccatores in congregatione iustorum

 

5. Ideo non consurgent impii in iudicio, neque peccatores in concilio iustorum.

 

5. Ideo non consistent impii in iudicio, Neque peccatores in concilio iustorum.

 

ideo non resurgunt impii in iudicio
neque peccatores in consilio iustorum
.

6. quoniam nouit Dominus uiam iustorum et iter impiorum peribit.

6. quoniam novit Dominus viam iustorum et iter impiorum peribit.

6. Quoniam novit Dominus viam iustorum, et iter impiorum peribit.

6. Quoniam Dominus curat viam iustorum, Et iter impiorum peribit.

quoniam nouit dominus uiam iustorum iter autem impiorum peribit.

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Breviary Psalter variations: drilling into Psalm 1

  1. Christian says:

    I am told that the ’45 psalter had to be withdrawn because it is so totally unsingable.

  2. I don’t think it was withdrawn as much as congregations (especially monks) were given permission to use the older Psalter again because it was more difficult to sing. Whether that is because it was intrinsically harder to sing or because the monks were used to older form for hundreds of years is something for discussion.

    Sadly, this is confusing enough in Latin. Plus we have so many English translations, based on the various Latin translations. However, I believe that the neo-Vulgate is considered THE current official Latin translation by the Church.

  3. When I was young, I had occasion to hear my Dad give a toast in Latin, based upon one of the Psalms: “O quam bonum et jucundum, est habitare cum fratribus in unum.” I have since seen it rendered as “Ecce quam bonum…” This might explain that.

    Has anyone else ever heard this psalm used as a toast?

  4. Father Bartoloma says:

    A very informative post. Thank you Father

  5. Andrew says:

    Omnes hae versiones plus minusve idem sunt – me judice – praeter versionem anni 1945, quae versisimiliter omnium accuratissima est, sed nescio qua de causa, minime placet minimeque movet animum. Hac versione mihi placet uti tantummodo cum ceterae versiones intellectu subobscurae sint. Adhibeo ergo hanc versionem tamquam commentarium quo sensus (ubi opus sit) manifestius explanatur. His dictis debeo dicere me nullam habere his in rebus peritiam. Utinam cognoscerem linguam haebraicam ut scirem quid revera his de rebus censendum est.

  6. Gordon says:

    I would say that the 1945 version is impossible to sing. Regarding the monks, tho, they had their own office. The Benedictine office is completely different from the Roman Breviary. Even with the modern Liturgy of Hours. However, the Church used the same version of the psalms regardless. It is also true that priests were allowed to continue with the older books. The older breviaries are the ones used in choir, such as the Liber Usalis. Don’t know if the 1945 version ever had notation. It was just for clergy to recite privately. The new version of Pius XII was not very popular. As to the meanings, it would seem to me that the older versions are more authentic, the neo vulgata (1970s)of Solesmes is also very good in choir.

  7. Manuel says:

    Good information thanks. This topic has always confused me but now it is much clearer. I have a Dominican breviary from 1956 and once noticed its psalms are different from the the sisto-Clementina.

  8. Mark M says:

    “[Those] who pay attention to what version of the prayers they must say to fulfill their obligation will sometimes debate among themselves the merits and drawbacks of different breviaries and their psalters.”

    Absolutely true, Father. Indeed, it was sadly my poor understanding of Latin that broke it all for me. I would dearly love to pray the ’62 Breviarium Romanum, and have one to hand, but my Latin is so poor that particularly matins does not make any sense. Couple that with the extra length, in comparison to the Liturgia Horarum, and it was beginning to become dry and an unnatural burden for this layman.

    Interesting comparison of Pss(!) 1. Sadly, again, I don’t know what the nuances of the differences are.

    …of course it doesn’t stop me singing Lauds and Vespers often, even if I don’t know what they mean, nor does it stop me rushing out to get the new Antiphonale from Solesmes.

  9. Geoffrey says:

    Great post, Father!

    I believe the Pius XII Psalter was optional from day one. The Vulgate Psalter was never replaced. In fact, I have a Rituale Romanum that has both versions of psalms so that the priest could just use whichever one he liked best. Too bad our modern liturgical books are much too big to do that today.

  10. Patrick says:

    What arguments can be used in favor of the PXII psalter? Obviously it is a translation of the Hebrew, which the Gallican/Roman psalter is not; but LITURGICALLY it was a disaster, and has now been consigned to liturgical history. It does prove that the rot had set in under PXII, however, despite what many people think.

    An example of how dreadful the PXII psalter is: the line “Ideo non consistent impii in iudicio” completely loses the traditional reference to resurrection found in the more ancient versions – a reference perfectly consistent with the Hebrew, by the way.

    I’m sure PXII is in heaven for many wonderful things he did, but not for introducing this most unfortunate psalter!

    As a footnote, why did you not include St Jerome’s own version of the Hebrew psalms? It was, in effect, a PXII psalter some 16 centuries before PXII; and it too never caught on. Nihil innovetur!

  11. Father Z,

    Will you do a post on food if you cook for this priest?

  12. Christian says:

    Oddly enough the ‘old’ psalter was, in fact, introduced in the 16th century and suffered attacks (at the time) that it was less beautiful to sing. Thus some basilicas have the honour of using the medieval psalter. St Peters in Rome is a prominent example.

    I would be fascinated, father, if you would comment on the psalms used for the Propers at Mass. I have been told that they actually predate the Vulgate! That is to say, they predate St Jerome’s translations. They are so old that no one know when they where translated and by whom. The refusal of the Church to adopt St Jerome’s translations for the psalter and only accept it for the reading is testament to the sense of TRADITION that even the early Christians had regarding the liturgy.

  13. Pope Evaristus, Martyr says:

    Thank you for this post.

  14. Ioannes Andreades says:

    I think it’s interesting that only the 1945 version has the word chaff (palea) in verse 4, which is the correct translation as opposed to pulvis (dust). The same can be said for the verbs curat (secures, watches over) as opposed to novit (knows). To be sure, the critical understanding of the psalms was revolutionized with the comparative analysis of Babylonian, Assyrian, and Ugaritic, and to a lesser degree, Egyptian. Even by the time the Septuagint was translated, much of the meaning of the Hebrew vocabulary had been lost, and the literature of these other languages has been very important. The Anchor Bible Psalms by Mithcell Dahood, S.J., really helps you get a feel for the scholarlay uncertainty of many of the words. Fr. Dahood believes that “transplanted” is the correct translation in verse 3, which only the Sisto-Clementine has. Hebrew poetry hard.

  15. Ioannes Andreades says:

    Patrick rote, “…the line “Ideo non consistent impii in iudicio” completely loses the traditional reference to resurrection found in the more ancient versions – a reference perfectly consistent with the Hebrew, by the way.”

    Dahood ad loc: “‘shall not stand’ Formally construed with bammispat and logically construed also with ba’adat, yaquma must bear a meaning that is apt with both. Hence the frequent version ‘shall not rise’ seems less probable.”

  16. glitterboy says:

    I have the current edition of the Liturgy of the Hours in Latin which uses the Neo-Vulgate for the Psalms etc. Which version of the psalms did the first (1971) edition of the Liturgy of the Hours use? The Pius XII version? I thought the neo-Vulgate was promulgated by Pope John Paul II rather than Paul VI?

  17. Geoffrey says:

    glitterboy: The 1st edition of the Liturgy of the Hours in Latin used the old Vulgate, I believe.

  18. Rellis says:

    In the history of the psalter, what about the psalm reordering of Divinio Afflatu (sp?) of Pius X? Alcuin Reid seems to think this was a most inorganic rupture in the history of the psalter. At the very least, it changed around the order greatly.

  19. Gregor says:

    The psalter is indeed fascinating in many ways. Just to clarify where the different versions are used:

    – the “Psalterium Romanum” (which is considered as “Jerome 1″ e.g. by Fr. Athanasius Miller OSB, author of the books on the psalter in the famous “Ecclesia Orans” series of the Liturgical Movement) is the Psalter used in the EF Missale Romanum (introits, graduals etc.)

    – the “Psalterium Gallicanum” (“Jerome 2″) is the Psalter used in the EF Breviarium Romanum (if the Psalter of Pius XII is not used, which is also called the Bea Psalter after its main author, German Cardinal Augustin Bea, Rector of the Pontifical Biblical Institute and Confessor of Pius XII)

  20. Tomás López says:

    Father Z–In Verse 4, I have “projicit.” I see that you do not use “j” at all but use “i” instead. So wouldn’t this word become “proiicit,” rather than “proicit”? Pardon my ignorance. Thank you!

  21. Gregory DiPippo says:

    The comment that the 1945 Psalter was withdrawn because it is unsingable is absolutely correct. Indeed, it is one of the very few liturgical texts that has been more or less officially killed off by the Church. Sacrosanctum Concilium no. 91 states “The work of revising the psalter, already happily begun, is to be finished as soon as possible, and is to take into account the style of Christian Latin, the liturgical use of psalms, also when sung, and the entire tradition of the Latin Church.” The point of this statement was to get rid of this abysmal farrago of Ciceronian prose-poem drivel. Pope John XXIII also personally disliked it, and forbade the use of it in any services for which he was present; at which point, it became rather unfashionable. The use of it was always, thank Heavens, optional.

    However, the statement that the old psalter was only introduced in the 16th century is not correct. The Sisto-Clementine text differs but very little from the earlier edits of the Vulgate Psalter in general liturgical use from the time of Alcuin, and St. Peters’ in Rome and St. Mark’s in Venice were in fact the only churches of the Roman Rite that continued to use it. The version of the Old Latin Psalter that continued in use in the Ambrosian Breviary is different, and that of the Mozarabic is yet a third version.

  22. Sid says:

    I thank Fr. Z for introducing this topic. It is very important to have a good Psalter. The Church already has a hymnbook: the Book of Psalms. It is Divine Scripture, i.e. that part of the Word of God that is written (scriptum). It is thus the model of how The Almighty wishes to be prayed to and sung to. And the Psalms are a good school of prayer. E.g., 40% of the Psalms are laments, which means that it’s perfectly acceptable to go to Mass or pray the office and to tell The LORD that “everything is going just terrible; would You do something about it?”

    We need in fact two translations of the Psalms. The first should be informed by the historical-critical school (Gunkel, Mowinkel, Westermann, Brueggemann) and should strive to be as faithful a translation of the Hebrew as is possible. In English, this is Robert Alter’s translation of the Psalms, now in print — though he too has some axes to grind and a few infelicities. (Pray, friends, that Alter lives long enough to translate the entire Hebrew Bible. Pray that for the rest of the Sacred Scripture we find as good a scholar of Koine who also can write beautiful English)

    The other translation — be it English, be it Latin — should consider the entire history of the reception of the text, its use in liturgy (where Scripture has its home), and its “sing-ability”

  23. Dan Hunter says:

    I have the Benedictine Diurnale printed by St Michael Abbey in Farnbourough UK.
    Does anyone know if this is a pre 1945 office

  24. athanasius says:

    I have the Benedictine Diurnale printed by St Michael Abbey in Farnbourough UK.
    Does anyone know if this is a pre 1945 office

    Yes, the Benedictines never, at any time, adopted the Pius XII psalms. Some religious orders did, (the Carmelites and Franciscans come to mind), but they were not required to.

    What I will say is this is a fascinating study. The first thing that comes to my mind is how the Nova-Vulgata is much more traditional than the 1945 psalter. I would say the latter is the “Novus Ordo” of psalters if Pius X’s revision from Divinu Afflatu hadn’t taken first prize in that category.

    Is there anywhere online where we could find the ancient Roman Psalter, or the fragments of St. Augustine’s?

  25. JAS says:

    I think the 45 shows a certain amount of tone-deafness to Christian usage…As Latin its certainly passable, but as Christian Latin it leaves something to be desired. For example, in this psalm, voluptas instead of voluntas grates on Christian ears, and certainly goes against established usage. Likewise, arbor for lignum – for obvious reasons, lignum is the preferred (and loaded) Christian term for tree. And protervus is just a silly word.

  26. inlaborerequies says:

    In OF ALL PLACES, an Episcopal Church publication, there is a wonderful explanation as to why any LITURGICAL Psalter in the vernacular should be made from the VULGATE!

    Hard to believe, I know, but this is true!

    Before the final BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER 1979 was pubished, in which “man” and “men” were replaced by plurals for the sake of “inclusive language,” the Episcopal Church published the draft of their Psalter as “The Prayer Book Psalter Revised” (Church Hymnal Corporation, 1973), in the Preface to which these AMAZING words are found (my emphases):

    “During the revision process, several new translations of the Psalms became available and were closely examined as the work progressed. The earliest was the English version of the Jerusalem Bible in 1966, and then in rapid succession, the several portions of the Anchor Bible Psalms, The Psalms in Modern Speech, the New English Bible, and the New American Bible . . . The very excellencies of the several modern versions MILITATE AGAINST THEIR SUITABILITY FOR THE CHURCH’S PURPOSES. With one exception (the English Revised Psalter), they are attempts, and some of them brilliantly successful attempts, to render into contemporary English speech the received Hebrew text of the Psalms, and even to press behind the received text (where it offers difficulties) to probable original readings. This is a laudable ambition in Bible translation, and one rightly values the results of such scholarship IN LITURGICAL READINGS AND FOR STUDY. THE PSALTER, HOWEVER, IS NOT JUST ANOTHER OLD TESTAMENT READING; IT IS A THOROUGHLY NATURALIZED CHRISTIAN LITERATURE; so that the question is not only, ‘What did this passage mean to the Jewish worshiper in pre-Christian Jerusalem?”; but also, “WHAT DOES THE PASSAGE MEAN TO THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH WHICH CONTINUES TO USE IT IN ITS WORSHIP?”

    “The Prayer Book Psalter, unlike the rest of the Great Bible of 1536, was NOT translated ‘out of the original tongues.’ It was an English translation, with reference to contemporary German versions, FROM THE LATIN VULGATE PSALTER; and that, in turn, was Saint Jerome’s revision of an older Old Latin version, not his own translation from the Hebrew. Finally, the Old Latin itself was a translation from a Greek translation made in the second and first centuries before Christ (the ‘Septuagint’). Our Psalter, then, stands at several removes from the Hebrew original, AND COMES TO US STEEPED IN CENTURIES OF JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN WORSHIP AND INTERPRETATION.

    “Moreover, the Psalter is not primarily a body of readings to which one listens, or which one reads in solitude. It is a hymnal intended for corporate congregational recitation. A version of the Psalms for public worship, therefore, must lend itself to congregational singing and reading. Any text, of course, can be set to music and sung by trained choirs; but the Prayer Book Psalter is demonstrably suitable, because of its flexible prose lines and strong rhythmical terminal patterns, both to reading and singing, not only by solo voices, but also in unison, antiphonally, and responsively, by a worshiping congregation. The metrical Psalters AND THE MODERN ‘GRAIL’ VERSION are designed for singing, but their strong metrical pulse makes for monotony and jerkiness in reading . . . ” (Prayer Book Psalter Revised, iv-vi).

    At least one, VERY CONSERVATIVE Benedictine house in the USA, which has kept most of its Office (and all of its CHANTED Office in Latin) uses THIS translation for those few Hours in which English is used.

    Psalm 45 (46)
    God is our refuge and strength,
    a very present help in trouble.

    Therefore, we will not fear, though the earth be moved,
    and though the mountains be toppled into the depths of the sea;

    Though its waters rage and foam,
    and though the mountains tremble at the tumult of the same.

    There is a river, whose streams make glad the city of God,
    the holy habitation of the Most High.

    God is in the midst of her; she shall not be overthrown;
    God shall help her, and that right early.

    The nations make much ado, and the kingdoms are shaken;
    God has spoken, and the earth shall melt away.

    The Lord of hosts is with us;
    the God of Jacob is our stronghold.

    Come now, and look upon the works of the Lord,
    what awesome things he has done on earth.

    It is he who makes war to cease in all the world;
    he breaks the bow, and shatters the spear asunder,
    and burns the chariots with fire.

    “Be still, then, and know that I am God;
    I will be exalted among the nations:
    I will be exalted in the earth.”

    The Lord of hosts is with us;
    the God of Jacob is our stronghold.

  27. Rob F. says:

    Father, this is the most interesting post you have ever put up, and that is saying quite a lot!

    You mention the concreteness of the images. This obviously is a great strength of the 1945 psalter; it gives that psalter a directness and freshness which none of the other psalters obtain. If you are reading the psalms as poetry, the 1945 version can’t be beat.

    But it you read the same psalm every week, like in the Divine Office, that freshness cannot be sustained. It is then that the real strength of the abstract language of the other psalters shines. When meditating on the psalms, the abstract (even vague) language more easily conforms to the moods of the heart, and shines light on the state of one’s soul, and on the rest of the day’s liturgy. I think that the lack of this *applicability* is why the Jerome-3 psalter never caught on in the liturgy, and why the 1945 psalter is similarly doomed.

    I do not speak for Andrew, who posted above, but I suspect that this is why the 1945 version “minime placet minimeque movet animum”. I agree with that and his other sentiments almost exactly.

    Theo Keller has also published on this topic, and did a multi-version comparison of “De profundis”. He then goes on to draw an ironic contrast between the historic variety of Latin psalters and todays monolithic insistence on one and only one English psalter. The first part of his three-part essay can be seen here: http://www.kellerbook.com/LANGUA~1.HTM

    Patrick: I think your comparison of the 1945 psalter and the Jerome-3 psalter is spot on, but the Church never tried to use the Jerome-3 psalter in the liturgy that I know of. Sometimes I wonder why; it seems no worse than the 1945 version as far as I can see.

    Glitterboy: you and Father are both right. The Nova Vulgata was published in stages, the first stage was the psalter in 1969, just as Father said. The whole thing was revised and first published as a unit (along the the apostolic constitution “Scriptuarum thesaurus”) under John Paul II, just as you thought.

    Gregor: thank you for that information about the EF Missale Romanum; I never new that. Is the versio romana still used in the OF Missale?

  28. Derik Castillo says:

    Dear Fr. Z.

    Thanks for sharing this post. I had this question in my mind for some time now, but did not pursue it because the expected intricacies and the lack of an adequate library.

    I may be wrong, but I believe there is one typo in

    – Psalterium Romanum verse 3 word quaecumaue.

  29. Rob F. says:

    It is very curious to me that in some places, the New Vulgate psalter agrees with the Roman over the Gallican. This surprises me because I know that nominally the New Vulgate is supposed to be a revision of the Clementine, and the Clementine used the Gallican psalter rather than the Roman.

    I like the New Vulgate psalter very much, but in a few places its divergence from the Gallican strikes me as somewhat gratuitous. One place where this is so is the “Venite exsultemus” which I pray every day. The two versions of this psalm are nearly identical until near the end, where we get “dixi semper errant corde” in the Gallican, and “Dixi: Populus errantium corde sunt isti” in the new. Is there another ancient psalter that the New Vulgate is following here?

  30. Gregor says:

    Rob F.,

    I completely agree with you. I also like the New Vulgate Psalter quite well, but at times have to wonder whether some changes weren’t just made for change’s sake. For instance in the Magnificat – why was it necessary to substitute “salvatore” for “salutari” and “in progenies et progenies” for “a progenie in progenies”, when there is no discernible difference in meaning, and this is such a central and well-known text, which has been set by so many composers to the Gallican wording.

  31. About a tangent mentioned in the post:

    Thanks for being politically incorrect in mentioning Trautman’s name in favour of the New Vulgate New Testament being based on the Nestle-Aland (which might just say something about the New Vulgate being based on the Nestle-Aland!). In this regard, you can add the name of Cardinal Martini to that of Trautman.

    Cheers!

  32. M. R. S. says:

    Speaking of tangents, please forgive me if this is too much of one, but I know an excellent work of charity particularly available to WDTPRS readers and to this discussion. The Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate are very eager to be able to use the breviary authorized by the Motu Proprio, which seems to be the 1961. From this discussion, I wonder if they could use an even older version or whether that means only psalm texts. Howbeit, they told me they ardently desire to have the use of at least two 1961-edition breviaries, which would be enough to start off with. They may be contacted by the phone or email listed on this page:

    http://www.marymediatrix.com/religious-life/franciscan-sisters-of-the-immaculate/

    P.S. Father, if it is off-topic would you in your kindness post it as a ‘QUAERITUR’? I am sure someone in the blogosphere can help them acquire breviaries…

  33. Most interesting site- I’ve long been seeking something like it. At the present
    time I am quite busy with my own profession – I just happened to arrive
    here and don’t wish to miss the opportunity to intervene –
    I’ll be around pretty soon.
    Congratulations