Criticism of the Vulgate: alleged errors and inaccuracies in translation

Question

I often hear that the Latin Vulgate has many inaccuracies of translation.

I often hear such criticism from Protestant circles; this (or the relative lack of such discourse among Catholics) might have to do with the role the Latin language and the Vulgate plays within the Roman Catholic church. I have to say this give proper context, but please avoid political discussion (and feel free to improve the wording of the question); some listings on the internet seem rather hot-headed. Naturally, the question of the "best translation" is a perennial one, and translation criticism is common for many Bible translations, no matter what denominations they are used in.

Back to the question: I would like to learn more about (real or alleged) errors or inaccuracies in translation in the Vulgate.

1. Where is the best place to look? Are there any compilations or published discussions?
2. What are the most common examples (of alleged translation mistakes) cited in discussions of criticism of the Vulgate?
3. There is a reason the Nova Vulgata was commissioned and published. What criticism of the Vulgate would still apply to the Nova Vulgata?

Answer 1

This one is my favorite, from the Duoay-Rheims Bible (an English translation of the Vulgate):

Ex 34:29-35 And when Moses came down from the mount Sinai, he held the two tables of the testimony, and he knew not that his face was horned from the conversation of the Lord. And Aaron and the children of Israel seeing the face of Moses horned, were afraid to come near. And being called by him, they returned, both Aaron and the rulers of the congregation. And after that he spoke to them. And all the children of Israel came to him: and he gave them in commandment all that he had heard of the Lord in mount Sinai. And having done speaking, he put a veil upon his face. But when he went in to the Lord, and spoke with him, he took it away until he came forth, and then he spoke to the children of Israel all things that had been commanded him. And they saw that the face of Moses when he came out was horned, but he covered his face again, if at any time he spoke to them.

This mistranslation is actually the origin of some hilarious art, including:

Another one is Psalms 127:4:

As arrows in the hand of the mighty, so the children of them that have been shaken. (Duoay-Rheims)

Like arrows in the hand of a warrior,
So are the children of one’s youth. (NKJV)

Sorry, couldn't find any good art for this one.

There are plenty of other weird translations in the Vulgate. They aren't difficult to find: a few minutes comparing a good translation to the Douay-Rheims Bible, especially if you know the passage well, should yield interesting results.

Answer 2

I'm new here - first post.

I'm also looking for criticism of Jerome's Vulgate, particular in texts from his own time or written not too long later.

I find terrifying the idea that no one ever complained (or noticed?) that when facing the word "maschiach" (translated to greek with "christos" and meaning "anointed", or if you prefer "the one who got oil poured on"), instead of translating to Latin using its most direct and logical translation, the word "unctus", Jerome just pretendad that Latin word didn't exist and chose instead to transliterate from Greek, thus inserting the word "Christus" in the Vulgata. I understand that he probably thought that the Romans wouldn't have accepted to worship someone called "Jesus the Greasy", but still I find this too much of a philological catastrophy to have gone unseen for 1600 years? Or maybe it wasn't him who picked the word "Christus" but some later theologist?

Of course there are some unexpected side effects of this choice, among which I find particularly bizarre Jerome's rendering of Isaiah 45:1, where he actually writes "This said the Lord, to my Christ Cyrus", see for yourself:

https://www.stepbible.org/?q=version=KJV|version=OHB|reference=Isa.45|version=LXX|strong=H4899|version=VulgJ&display=INTERLEAVED

If anyone is aware of any Roman or medieval criticism (or manipulation) of this particular word, I'd highly appreciate you get back to me! Thanks in advance :-)

Answer 3

One Example One word that Jerome (Heironymus) mistranslated was the Greek word, ethnos (ethnics). In the Greek, this simply means nation or nationals, referring to any people group around the world or province of Rome (used as such in Roman documents; Moulton's Greek)---without evil connotation of any sort. It is used of different citizenships.

But Jerome used the Latin, gentilis or "Gentile" to translate this word. That Latin word has more of a negative connotation, such as a second-class foreigner often brought to Rome as a slave. This misled and influenced the English translators to later in corporate it in the English translations of the Bible.

But in doing so, it has given the impression that the the Bible teaches that the nations of the world are inferior to the Jewish nationals. It puts more emphasis on their paganism and backwardness than was intended. And it lends toward attitudes of racism...superiority...exclusivity.

There are other Greek words that have an emphasize on a connotation of paganism and idolatry, but those aren't used in the New Testament in reference to the nations (ethnos). If the New Testament writers wanted to emphasize the wickedness of the other people, they certainly would have used them. [And if they wanted to transliterate "Gentile" they could have done that as well, but didn't.]

The intent of Divine redemption---the plan of salvation---was that all the nations of the world be blessed (God's Gospel message to Abraham).

In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. (Genesis 12:3)

And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the nations (Gk. *ethnos; heathen, KJV) through faith, evangelized unto Abraham, saying, "In thee shall all nations be blessed." (Galatians 3:8)

For I speak to you nations (ethnos) insomuch as I am the apostle of the nations (ethnos; Gentiles, KJV). (Romans 11:13)

In every nation (ethnos) he that fears Him, and worketh righteousness is accepted with Him. (Acts 10:35)

Consider how the New Testament would read, if "nations" was used throughout the scriptures...Instead of Jerome's "gentiles."

Answer 4

You’re talking about language and languages and interpretations. It’s amazing how much was done correctly without electric light or computers.

Probably any Psalm that begins talking about where God is and what He is doing is a mistranslation or fragment. The Psalm is a form that began with providing situational context of the Psalm.

The biggest source of ‘lost in translation’ is the poetry. There is no way to capture the rhythm and sounds of the poetry of the Hebrew.

But for a very simple example, there is no definite article ‘In the beginning…’.