From a reader…
QUAERITUR:
What is one to do when the new and old Vulgates differ to such a high degree, the entire context is changed? What context is correct?
For example, Psalm 143 from the traditional translation presents the psalmist as desiring rescue from a foreign people, who he describes as, “Their sons are like fresh plants in their youth, their daughters are adorned like a temple, their sheep are plentiful, there’s no outcry in their streets, etc.” The final line provides the context and meaning behind the psalm: “They call those who have such things blessed, but blessed are those whose God is the Lord.”
The newer translation for Psalm 144, in comparison, no longer describes the blessings as belonging to the foreign people. It is now, “May our sons in their youth be like fresh plants, our daughters like pillars cut for a palace, may our sheep increase by thousands, and no outcry in our streets, etc.” The final line is now, “Blessed are those who have such things, blessed are those whose God is the Lord.”
Am I wrong, or are these two interpretations diametrically opposed to one another? The traditional meaning essentially implying that it is better to not have these things, as long as one possesses God, whereas the newer meaning more or less promotes a similar message to the prosperity gospel. How does one determine which context is correct?
Hard stuff. It challenges me to scrub the rust off of my Patristic training. It seems appropriate to respond on the Feast of St Jerome.
Pius XII supplied the relevant Catholic principle in Divino afflante Spiritu 20–22, that is, the Council of Trent’s recognition of the Vulgate concerns its ecclesiastical use and doctrinal reliability. It does not establish its superiority to the original language texts in every textual detail. Ven. Pius encouraged recourse to those texts while maintaining respect for the Vulgate. You may therefore continue praying the traditional text with confidence even as you know about the sound textual basis of the other reading.
That said, the difference deserves explanation. This isn’t the easiest stuff to navigate.
A starting point is that the Hebrew-based reading was translated by St. Jerome. In his Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos, Psalm 143:12 begins “ut sint filii nostri … that our sons may be”. Verse 15 begins “beatus populus cuius talia sunt… blessed the people whose possessions are such.” Hence, the difference existed within ancient Latin biblical tradition long before the Nova Vulgata (Neo-Vulgate). Jerome’s Hebrew Psalter and the Greek-based Psalter preserved different readings. The latter became the familiar traditional liturgical text.
What follows?
The traditional reading does not imply that flourishing children, flocks, food and peace streets are undesirable. Its warning concerns equating their possession with true happiness. St. Augustine commented on this passage. He refuses to condemn the people simply because their prosperity. Instead, says the fault is their judgment about what makes a people happy, “blessed” (en in ps 143). The point is that these things cannot substitute for the happiness found in God, and that one must prefer God over any created, earthly advantages.
Anyway, from the point of view of the received Hebrew text, the Hebrew-based version is more linguistically accurate. On the other hand, the merely linguistic put aside, the traditional Latin liturgical text from the Greek-based text, along with its Patristic interpretation, is indispensable and it constitutes though Tradition and liturgical use its own theological locus.
So, I’ll circle back to what Pius XII said, at the top.
EAW on Full contact martial arts as mandatory seminary training.: “@William Tighe: That was my first thought as well. But, as many of us here know, African Anglicans are an…”
