Bible translations into Latin

1273:(2006) chapter 9 (“The Latin Translations”) by Benjamin Kedar "Traces of Jewish Traditions - Since all indications point to the fact that the OL is not the product of a single effort, the question arises whether strands of pristine translations, or at least early interpretative traditions can be detected in it. A priori one may feel entitled to presume that Jewish Bible translations into Latin existed in relatively early times. It had been the custom of the Jews before the period under review to translate biblical books into their vernacular; such translations, sometimes made orally but frequently also written down, were needed for public reading in the synagogue and for the instruction of the young. Indeed, a number of scholars are inclined to believe that the OL has at its base pre-Christian translations made from the Hebrew. The proofs they adduce are, however, far from conclusive. Isolated linguistic or exegetic points of contact with Jewish idioms or targumic renderings do not necessarily prove a direct connection between the ol, or its early sections, and Jewish traditions." 415: 443: 1086: 1500:

accompanied the Hebrew text of Münster referred to above. It appeared in 1535 in two folio volumes and was reprinted in quarto size in 1539 accompanied by the Complutensian version of the Apocrypha and by Erasmus's Latin New Testament, and then again in its original form in 1546. This version gave an impetus to Old Testament study similar to that which Erasmus had given to the study of the New Testament…”

53: 1513:

1975 p.62 “Calvin's successor at Geneva, Théodore de Bèze (Beza), was the editor of the next important edition of the Greek New Testament, which appeared in 1565 (his own Latin version had been printed in 1557) and went through many editions in folio and octavo, accompanied in the larger size by his

1606:

1975 p.167 “The latter, to which they probably resorted more than to any other single book, contained (in the later editions which they used) Tremellius's Latin version of the Hebrew Old Testament with a commentary, Junius's Latin of the Apocrypha, Tremellius's Latin of the Syriac New Testament and

1653:

Gaertner, J. A Latin verse translations of the psalms 1500-1620. Harvard Theological Review 49 1956. "A good example of such a buried and forgotten literary genre is offered by the multitude of metrical Bible translations into Latin that appeared during the :6th century and after a hundred years

1499:

1975 p.70 “The hebraist Sebastian Münster of Basle departed from the extreme literalism of Pagnini in his own Latin version of the Old Testament: he left aside the New Testament. While it 'did not depart by a nail's breadth from the Hebrew verity', this version was written in better Latin: it

1440:

Helmut Köster Introduction to the New Testament 2 2000 p34 "An early witness for the African text of the Vetus Latina is Codex Palatinus 1 1 85 (siglum "e") from the 5th century, a gospel codex with readings closely related to the quotations in Cyprian and

769: 1211:

Metrical Latin Bible translations are primarily Psalm paraphrases, or paraphrases of Song of Songs, Lamentations, in Latin verse which appeared in the 16th century, then abruptly disappeared.

1202:. In the same year, a revised edition of the Sixtine Vulgate was published and promulgated by Clement VIII; this edition is known as the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate, or Clementine Vulgate. 119:

tradition reflects numerous distinct, similar, and not entirely independent translations of various New Testament texts, extending back to the time of the original Greek autographs.

1198:, arguing printing errors in the Sixtine Vulgate, recalled all copies of the Sixtine Vulgate still in circulation; some suspect his decision was in fact due to the influence of the 1549: 1482: 747: 794: 95:. Though there is no certain evidence of a pre-Christian Latin translation of the Hebrew Bible, some scholars have suggested that Jewish congregations in 1711: 1114: 910: 816: 1389:

Canellis, Aline, ed. (2017). "Introduction : Du travail de Jérôme à la Vulgate" [Introduction: From Jerome's work to the Vulgate].

716: 597: 592: 1406: 1373: 584: 1644:. Includes list: Latin metrical translations of books of the Bible other than the psalms by author and year of f1rst edition (1494–1621); 845: 1716: 1294: 620: 615: 1561: 1466: 763: 628: 359: 208:. They were never rendered independently from the Hebrew or Greek; they vary widely in readability and quality, and contain many 1721: 1039: 520: 307: 1079: 949: 711: 414: 1190:

suspended the sale of the Sixtine Vulgate and later ordered the destruction of the copies. Thereafter, two commissions under

788: 384:), which became famous among Protestants. Later editions of their version were accompanied by the Latin version of the Greek 354: 194:

consist of a number of piecework translations during the early Church period. Collectively, these versions are known as the

1282:"There is no such thing as a uniform version of the New Testament in Latin prior to Jerome's Vulgate". Elliott (1997:202). 915: 377: 1182:

The Sixto-Clementine Vulgate is a revision of the Sixtine Vulgate; the latter had been published two years earlier under

204:. The Septuagint was the usual source for these anonymous translators, and they reproduce its variations from the Hebrew 292: 1527:

Sébastien Castellion, sa vie et son oeuvre (1515-1563) : étude sur les origines du protestantisme libéral français

1107: 954: 1619: 1150:. It was the second edition of the Vulgate to be formally authorized by the Catholic Church, the first being the 1034: 442: 1162:, hence its name. The Sixto-Clementine Vulgate was used officially in the Catholic Church until 1979, when the 1128: 979: 800: 758: 602: 407: 179: 1004: 989: 939: 774: 574: 562: 543: 282: 1100: 1063: 1055: 999: 969: 806: 779: 507: 381: 323: 1147: 994: 984: 883: 46: 1237:

as a basis for a new official translation of the Bible into Latin. This revision ultimately led to the

310:

in the New Testament, although the system used here did not become widely adopted; the system used in

1187: 934: 920: 835: 742: 669: 330: 131: 80: 1524:

Buisson, Ferdinand (1892). "Les deux traductions de la Bible, en latin (1550) en français (1555)".

1398: 1365: 964: 959: 944: 925: 860: 855: 648: 373: 350: 27: 1636: 1476: 1424:

A grammar of the Vulgate, being an introduction to the study of the latinity of the Vulgate Bible

1068: 1050: 1009: 825: 644: 538: 528: 311: 155: 143: 1458: 1452: 306:, notable for its literal rendering of the Hebrew. This version was also the first to introduce 1604: