Problems with the Nova Vulgata in the Gospel of Matthew

by Ronald L. Conte Jr. (June 18, 2010)

This article compares three editions of the Latin Vulgate: Clementine Vulgate, Nova Vulgata, and Stuttgart Vulgate.

Order of the verses:
1. CV — 1914 Hetzenauer edition of the Clementine Vulgate, public domain
2. NV — current Nova Vulgata edition from the vatican.va website, copyrighted
3. FS — Stuttgart 1975 (second) edition by Fischer, copyrighted by the German Bible Society and the United Bible Societies

The most recent edit of the Stuttgart is here. The 1975 edition (FS) is the most common Latin Bible on the internet. Many sites incorrectly claim that it is nothing other than the text of Saint Jerome’s Latin Bible, and few give proper attribution to the actual source of the text.

Abbreviations:
UBS — United Bible Societies’ Greek text (Critical Text)
Online: http://interlinear.biblos.com/matthew/1.htm
Westcott-Hort edition, 1881, with variants from UBS, 4th edition, 1993
Print: The New Testament in Greek and English, Greek Text of the United Bible Societies, Edited by Aland, Black, Metzger, and Wikgreen, with Today’s English Version (Good News Bible), American Bible Society, New York, 1966.
(This is the same text which the Praenotanda to the Nova Vulgata states was used to prepare the Latin New Testament.)

TR — Textus Receptus Greek text
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm
Scrivener, 1894

MT — Majority Text
http://www.bible-researcher.com/hodges-farstad.html
Text Hodges and Farstad, 1982

Note that, when the simple term ‘Greek’ is used to refer to texts, the UBS, TR, and MT are in agreement.

Not every difference between the CV, NV, and FS is noted below. The reader can use the collated Latin text to readily identify various minor differences.

The entire Gospel of Matthew, with a verse by verse collation of these three editions of the Latin.

Comparative Analysis of the Gospel of Matthew in Latin

NV adds ‘Jesus’, in accord with the Greek.
{1:18} Christi autem generatio sic erat: Cum esset desponsata mater eius Maria Ioseph, antequam convenirent, inventa est in utero habens de Spiritu sancto.
{1:18} Iesu Christi autem generatio sic erat. Cum esset desponsata mater eius Maria Ioseph, antequam convenirent inventa est in utero habens de Spiritu Sancto.
{1:18} Christi autem generatio sic erat cum esset desponsata mater eius Maria Ioseph antequam convenirent inventa est in utero habens de Spiritu Sancto

NV omits ‘her firstborn’, in accord with UBS, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT.
{1:25} Et non cognoscebat eam donec peperit filium suum primogenitum: et vocavit nomen eius Iesum.
{1:25} et non cognoscebat eam, donec peperit filium, et vocavit nomen eius Iesum.
{1:25} et non cognoscebat eam donec peperit filium suum primogenitum et vocavit nomen eius Iesum.

The term ‘firstborn’ has profound theological significance in both the Old Testament and especially the New Testament. In Romans 8:29, Jesus is described as the firstborn of many brothers, i.e. his disciples. In Colossians, Jesus is described as the firstborn of every creature. In the Old Testament, the firstborn has certain rights in the family, and the firstborn male was consecrated to God as the first-fruits of the womb. So the omission of ‘her firstborn’, despite its theological significance and its presence in other Latin and Greek sources, is a serious concern. Neither is it sufficient that the term appears in Luke’s Gospel. For a Gospel is not a series of unconnected assertions, but a related set of assertions. The context and the relationship between the verses provides meaning, even if a particular assertion is found in another book of the Bible.

NV changes ‘found’ to ‘saw’, in accord with Greek text.
{2:11} Et intrantes domum, invenerunt puerum cum Maria matre eius, et procidentes adoraverunt eum: et apertis thesauris suis obtulerunt ei munera, aurum, thus, et myrrham.
{2:11} Et intrantes domum viderunt puerum cum Maria matre eius, et procidentes adoraverunt eum; et apertis thesauris suis, obtulerunt ei munera, aurum et tus et myrrham.
{2:11} et intrantes domum invenerunt puerum cum Maria matre eius et procidentes adoraverunt eum et apertis thesauris suis obtulerunt ei munera aurum tus et murram

NV omits ‘fieri’ (to become), in accord with Greek.
{4:19} et ait illis: Venite post me, et faciam vos fieri piscatores hominum.
{4:19} Et ait illis: ” Venite post me, et faciam vos piscatores hominum “.
{4:19} et ait illis venite post me et faciam vos fieri piscatores hominum

NV changes ‘nets’ to ‘boat’, in accord with Greek.
{4:22} Illi autem statim relictis retibus et patre, secuti sunt eum.
{4:22} Illi autem statim, relicta navi et patre suo, secuti sunt eum.
{4:22} illi autem statim relictis retibus et patre secuti sunt eum

NV and FS drop ‘Jesus’, in accord with the Greek.
{5:1} Videns autem Iesus turbas, ascendit in montem, et cum sedisset, accesserunt ad eum discipuli eius,
{5:1} Videns autem turbas, ascendit in montem; et cum sedisset, ac cesserunt ad eum discipuli eius;
{5:1} videns autem turbas ascendit in montem et cum sedisset accesserunt ad eum discipuli eius

NV transposes verses 5:4 and 5:5 in the Beatitudes, in accord with Greek, contrary to CV, FS.

NV omits ‘to the ancients’, in accord with UBS and MT, contrary to CV, FS, TR.
{5:27} Audistis quia dictum est antiquis: Non mœchaberis.
{5:27} Audistis quia dictum est: “Non moechaberis”.
{5:27} audistis quia dictum est antiquis non moechaberis

NV capitalizes Malo, in accord with the meaning of the Greek phrasing ‘of the evil [one]’.
{5:37} Sit autem sermo vester, est, est: non, non: quod autem his abundantius est, a malo est.
{5:37} Sit autem sermo vester: “Est, est”, “Non, non”; quod autem his abundantius est, a Malo est.
{5:37} sit autem sermo vester est est non non quod autem his abundantius est a malo est

This change implies the translation ‘from the evil one’ as opposed to ‘from evil.’

NV omits ‘et alia’, in agreement with the Greek.
{5:41} et quicumque te angariaverit mille passus, vade cum illo et alia duo.
{5:41} et quicumque te angariaverit mille passus, vade cum illo duo.
{5:41} et quicumque te angariaverit mille passus vade cum illo alia duo

NV omits ‘do good to those who hate you’, also omits ‘and slander you’, in accord with UBS, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT.
{5:44} Ego autem dico vobis: Diligite inimicos vestros, benefacite his, qui oderunt vos: et orate pro persequentibus et calumniantibus vos:
{5:44} Ego autem dico vobis: Diligite inimicos vestros et orate pro persequentibus vos,
{5:44} ego autem dico vobis diligite inimicos vestros benefacite his qui oderunt vos et orate pro persequentibus et calumniantibus vos

There are numerous examples in the NV of the on-going erosion of the Canon of Scripture. This erosion occurs when scholarly judgment is allowed to determine what is or is not inspired Scripture. The Council of Trent infallibly taught that all of Sacred Scripture is inspired and canonical, not only all the books, but also all their parts, as found in the Latin scriptural tradition:

“But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.”

Very many words and phrases, and more than a few verses, have been dropped from the Canon, only very recently, despite being found in the Latin scriptural tradition and despite being used by the Church for many centuries. Inspired words are being taken away from Scripture and from the faithful. Sometimes these words, phrases, and verses are relegated to a footnote, other times they are omitted altogether. In the NV, they are omitted. And this process continues without any end in sight. The NV gives no consideration whatsoever to this teaching of Trent about the relationship between the Canon of Scripture and the Latin scriptural tradition, nor does it give any weight to Greek sources other than the UBS text. It is as if the teaching of Trent, that the contents of the Canon of Scripture is determined by the Latin as it has long been read and used in the Church, has been replaced by a new false teaching, that the Canon is determined by the United Bible Societies editors, and whatever the most recent version of their critical text. The Council of Trent strongly condemned numerous Protestant heresies, yet now the Canon of Scripture, as it pertains to the contents of each book, is for all practical purposes being determined by an organization which consists mainly of Protestants and Protestant Bible Societies, and which does not acknowledge the authority of the Council of Trent or of the Magisterium at all.

NV reverses the order of ‘upon the good and the evil’ but not ‘upon the just and the unjust’, in accord with the Greek.
{5:45} ut sitis filii patris vestri, qui in cælis est: qui solem suum oriri facit super bonos, et malos: et pluit super iustos et iniustos.
{5:45} ut sitis filii Patris vestri, qui in caelis est, quia solem suum oriri facit super malos et bonos et pluit super iustos et iniustos.
{5:45} ut sitis filii Patris vestri qui in caelis est qui solem suum oriri facit super bonos et malos et pluit super iustos et iniustos

NV adds ‘your’ to ‘door,’ and changes ‘your Father in secret’ to ‘your Father, who is in secret’, in accord with the meaning of the Greek.
{6:6} Tu autem cum oraveris, intra in cubiculum tuum, et clauso ostio, ora patrem tuum in abscondito: et pater tuus qui videt in abscondito, reddet tibi.
{6:6} Tu autem cum orabis, intra in cubiculum tuum et, clauso ostio tuo, ora Patrem tuum, qui est in abscondito; et Pater tuus, qui videt in abscondito, reddet tibi.
{6:6} tu autem cum orabis intra in cubiculum tuum et cluso ostio tuo ora Patrem tuum in abscondito et Pater tuus qui videt in abscondito reddet tibi

NV and FS drop ‘Amen’, in accord with UBS Greek. CV, TR, and MT retain ‘Amen.’
NV capitalizes Malo in accord with the meaning of the Greek, so that the text says ‘from the evil one’ instead of ‘from evil’.
{6:13} Et ne nos inducas in tentationem. Sed libera nos a malo. Amen.
{6:13} et ne inducas nos in tentationem, sed libera nos a Malo.
{6:13} et ne inducas nos in temptationem sed libera nos a malo

NV omits the phrase ‘your offenses’, in accord with the Greek.
{6:14} Si enim dimiseritis hominibus peccata eorum: dimittet et vobis pater vester cælestis delicta vestra.
{6:14} Si enim dimiseritis hominibus peccata eorum, dimittet et vobis Pater vester caelestis;
{6:14} si enim dimiseritis hominibus peccata eorum dimittet et vobis Pater vester caelestis delicta vestra

NV changes ‘stature’ to ‘age’, but does not change ‘cubit’ to ‘hour’, in accord with one possible meaning of the Greek.
{6:27} Quis autem vestrum cogitans potest adiicere ad staturam suam cubitum unum?
{6:27} Quis autem vestrum cogitans potest adicere ad aetatem suam cubitum unum?
{6:27} quis autem vestrum cogitans potest adicere ad staturam suam cubitum unum

The pairing of stature with cubit makes sense, since both are units of measure. Adding cubit to one’s life span uses a unit of length as a figure for a unit of time, which is also a tenable reading. However, the Latin reading is replaced with one possible reading of the Greek in the NV.

NV adds ‘heavenly’, in accord with the Greek.
{6:32} hæc enim omnia gentes inquirunt. Scit enim pater vester, quia his omnibus indigetis.
{6:32} Haec enim omnia gentes inquirunt; scit enim Pater vester caelestis quia his omnibus indigetis.
{6:32} haec enim omnia gentes inquirunt scit enim Pater vester quia his omnibus indigetis

NV omits ‘the same shall enter into the kingdom of heaven’, in accord with the Greek text.
{7:21} Non omnis, qui dicit mihi, Domine, Domine, intrabit in regnum cælorum: sed qui facit voluntatem Patris mei, qui in cælis est, ipse intrabit in regnum cælorum.
{7:21} Non omnis, qui dicit mihi: “Domine, Domine”, intrabit in regnum caelorum, sed qui facit voluntatem Patris mei, qui in caelis est.
{7:21} non omnis qui dicit mihi Domine Domine intrabit in regnum caelorum sed qui facit voluntatem Patris mei qui in caelis est ipse intrabit in regnum caelorum

NV omits ‘and Pharisees’, in accord with the Greek.
{7:29} Erat enim docens eos sicut potestatem habens, et non sicut Scribæ eorum, et Pharisæi.
{7:29} erat enim docens eos sicut potestatem habens, et non sicut scribae eorum.
{7:29} erat enim docens eos sicut potestatem habens non sicut scribae eorum et Pharisaei.

NV and FS have ‘tabernacula’ instead of ‘nidos’ (nests).
{8:20} Et dicit ei Iesus: Vulpes foveas habent, et volucres cæli nidos: filius autem hominis non habet ubi caput reclinet.
{8:20} Et dicit ei Iesus: ” Vulpes foveas habent, et volucres caeli tabernacula, Filius autem hominis non habet, ubi caput reclinet “.
{8:20} et dicit ei Iesus vulpes foveas habent et volucres caeli tabernacula Filius autem hominis non habet ubi caput reclinet

The Greek word here reads as ‘nests’, though it is related to the word for tents, which in Latin can be rendered as ‘tabernacula’. NV seems to rely solely on FS for ‘tabernacula’, since the Greek is more readily translated as ‘nests’.

NV and FS omit ‘ad eum discipuli eius’, in accord with the UBS Greek. TR and MT have ‘his disciples’ but not ‘to him.’
{8:25} Et accesserunt ad eum Discipuli eius, et suscitaverunt eum, dicentes: Domine, salva nos, perimus.
{8:25} Et accesserunt et suscitaverunt eum dicentes: ” Domine, salva nos, perimus! “.
{8:25} et accesserunt et suscitaverunt eum dicentes Domine salva nos perimus

NV and FS omit ‘Jesus’ in accord with the Greek.
{8:26} Et dicit eis Iesus: Quid timidi estis, modicæ fidei? Tunc surgens, imperavit ventis, et mari, et facta est tranquillitas magna.
{8:26} Et dicit eis: ” Quid timidi estis, modicae fidei? “. Tunc surgens increpavit ventis et mari, et facta est tranquillitas magna.
{8:26} et dicit eis quid timidi estis modicae fidei tunc surgens imperavit ventis et mari et facta est tranquillitas magna

NV omits ‘non’ (not), in accord with the Greek.
{8:30} Erat autem non longe ab illis grex multorum porcorum pascens.
{8:30} Erat autem longe ab illis grex porcorum multorum pascens.
{8:30} erat autem non longe ab illis grex porcorum multorum pascens

This has the effect of placing the herd of many swine ‘far’ from them, rather than ‘not far’ from them.

NV adds ‘simul’ (together), which is implied by the meaning of the Greek text (to recline together).
{9:10} Et factum est discumbente eo in domo, ecce multi publicani, et peccatores venientes discumbebant cum Iesu, et discipulis eius.
{9:10} Et factum est, discumbente eo in domo, ecce multi publicani et peccatores venientes simul discumbebant cum Iesu et discipulis eius.
{9:10} et factum est discumbente eo in domo ecce multi publicani et peccatores venientes discumbebant cum Iesu et discipulis eius

NV omits ‘Jesus’, in accord with UBS, contrary to FS, CV, TR, MT.
{9:12} At Iesus audiens, ait: Non est opus valentibus medicus, sed male habentibus.
{9:12} At ille audiens ait: ” Non est opus valentibus medico sed male habentibus.
{9:12} at Iesus audiens ait non est opus valentibus medico sed male habentibus

Is Jesus’ name so offensive that it must be omitted from the text, even with support for the word in all Latin and in substantial Greek sources?

NV rephrases ‘sons of the groom’ (filii sponsi) to ‘guests of the wedding’ (convivae nuptiarum), contrary to the Greek and Latin texts.
{9:15} Et ait illis Iesus: Numquid possunt filii sponsi lugere, quamdiu cum illis est sponsus? Venient autem dies cum auferetur ab eis sponsus: et tunc ieiunabunt.
{9:15} Et ait illis Iesus: ” Numquid possunt convivae nuptiarum lugere, quamdiu cum illis est sponsus? Venient autem dies, cum auferetur ab eis sponsus, et tunc ieiunabunt.
{9:15} et ait illis Iesus numquid possunt filii sponsi lugere quamdiu cum illis est sponsus venient autem dies cum auferetur ab eis sponsus et tunc ieiunabunt

*NV substantially rephrases out of political correctness, i.e. in order to make the text gender neutral. The Greek text has the word ‘sons’ — the same word used for the ‘sons’ of Zebedee (James and John), and the same word used in the singular for Jesus as the Son of God and Son of Man. The Latin text literally reads as ‘sons’, or more loosely as ‘children’, but not by any stretch as ‘guests’. It is appalling that the only substantial differences between the Protestant UBS Greek text and the NV is not an edit called for by Catholic teaching, nor by the Latin scriptural tradition, but an edit called for by the political correctness of sinful secular society.

NV and FS omit ‘Lord’, in accord with the Greek text.
{9:18} Hæc illo loquente ad eos, ecce princeps unus accessit, et adorabat eum, dicens: Domine, filia mea modo defuncta est: sed veni, impone manum tuam super eam, et vivet.
{9:18} Haec illo loquente ad eos, ecce princeps unus accessit et adorabat eum dicens: ” Filia mea modo defuncta est; sed veni, impone manum tuam super eam, et vivet “.
{9:18} haec illo loquente ad eos ecce princeps unus accessit et adorabat eum dicens filia mea modo defuncta est sed veni inpone manum super eam et vivet

NV and FS omit ‘saying: Peace to this house’, in accord with the Greek.
{10:12} Intrantes autem in domum, salutate eam, dicentes: Pax huic domui.
{10:12} Intrantes autem in domum, salutate eam;
{10:12} intrantes autem in domum salutate eam

NV omits ‘audiendi’ (to hear), in accord with UBS, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT. “Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear” becomes “Whoever has ears, let him hear”.
{11:15} Qui habet aures audiendi, audiat.
{11:15} Qui habet aures, audiat.
{11:15} qui habet aures audiendi audiat

NV omits ‘perhaps’ (forte) from ‘perhaps it would have remained, even to this day’, in accord with the Greek text.
{11:23} Et tu Capharnaum, numquid usque in cælum exaltaberis? usque in infernum descendes. quia, si in Sodomis factæ fuissent virtutes, quæ factæ sunt in te, forte mansissent usque in hanc diem.
{11:23} Et tu, Capharnaum, numquid usque in caelum exaltaberis? Usque in infernum descendes! Quia si in Sodomis factae fuissent virtutes, quae factae sunt in te, mansissent usque in hunc diem.
{11:23} et tu Capharnaum numquid usque in caelum exaltaberis usque in infernum descendes quia si in Sodomis factae fuissent virtutes quae factae sunt in te forte mansissent usque in hunc diem

NV omits ‘etiam’ (even), in accord with the Greek.
{12:8} Dominus enim est filius hominis etiam sabbati.
{12:8} Dominus est enim Filius hominis sabbati “.
{12:8} dominus est enim Filius hominis etiam sabbati

NV changes ‘instructed’ (praecepit) to ‘warned’ (comminatus est), in accord with the Greek.
{12:16} et præcepit eis ne manifestum eum facerent.
{12:16} et comminatus est eis, ne manifestum eum facerent,
{12:16} et praecepit eis ne manifestum eum facerent

NV adds ‘mutus’ (mute) a second time, as does the Greek. However, TR and MT also have ‘blind’ (caecus) a second time, whereas NV and UBS do not.
{12:22} Tunc oblatus est ei dæmonium habens, cæcus, et mutus, et curavit eum ita ut loqueretur, et videret.
{12:22} Tunc oblatus est ei daemonium habens, caecus et mutus, et curavit eum, ita ut mutus loqueretur et videret.
{12:22} tunc oblatus est ei daemonium habens caecus et mutus et curavit eum ita ut loqueretur et videret

NV omits ‘Jesus’, in accord with UBS, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT.
{12:25} Iesus autem sciens cogitationes eorum, dixit eis: Omne regnum divisum contra se, desolabitur: et omnis civitas, vel domus divisa contra se, non stabit.
{12:25} Sciens autem cogitationes eorum dixit eis: ” Omne regnum divisum contra se desolatur, et omnis civitas vel domus divisa contra se non stabit.
{12:25} Iesus autem sciens cogitationes eorum dixit eis omne regnum divisum contra se desolatur et omnis civitas vel domus divisa contra se non stabit

NV changes ‘asks for a sign’ (signum quærit) to ‘requires a sign’ (signum requirit), contrary to the Greek and Latin.
{12:39} Qui respondens ait illis: Generatio mala, et adultera signum quærit: et signum non dabitur ei, nisi signum Ionæ prophetæ.
{12:39} Qui respondens ait illis: ” Generatio mala et adultera signum requirit; et signum non dabitur ei, nisi signum Ionae prophetae.
{12:39} qui respondens ait illis generatio mala et adultera signum quaerit et signum non dabitur ei nisi signum Ionae prophetae

*This is a rare editorial decision in the NV not made to conform the Latin to the UBS Greek. The effect is to imply that asking for a sign is not sinful, only requiring a sign is sinful. This change imposes an interpretation on the text. Note that the Greek word here means ‘to seek or desire’ not ‘to require’. What is the reason for this edit? Perhaps it is a type of political correctness, not wishing to criticize persons who seeks signs.

NV changes ‘seeking you’ to ‘seeking to speak with you’, in accord with the Greek.
{12:47} Dixit autem ei quidam: Ecce mater tua, et fratres tui foris stant quærentes te.
{12:47} Dixit autem ei quidam: ” Ecce mater tua et fratres tui foris stant quaerentes loqui tecum “.
{12:47} dixit autem ei quidam ecce mater tua et fratres tui foris stant quaerentes te

NV omits ‘audiendi’ (to hear), in accord with UBS, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT.
{13:9} Qui habet aures audiendi, audiat.
{13:9} Qui habet aures, audiat “.
{13:9} qui habet aures audiendi audiat

NV capitalizes ‘malus’, in agreement with the meaning of the Greek.
{13:19} Omnis, qui audit verbum regni, et non intelligit, venit malus, et rapit quod seminatum est in corde eius: hic est qui secus viam seminatus est.
{13:19} Omnis, qui audit verbum regni et non intellegit, venit Malus et rapit, quod seminatum est in corde eius; hic est, qui secus viam seminatus est.
{13:19} omnis qui audit verbum regni et non intellegit venit malus et rapit quod seminatum est in corde eius hic est qui secus viam seminatus est

This change implies that it is not evil in general, but the evil one, i.e. the devil, who carries away what was sown.

NV changes ‘nequam’ (wickedness) to ‘Mali’ (the evil one), in agreement with the meaning of the Greek.
{13:38} Ager autem, est mundus. Bonum vero semen, hi sunt filii regnum. Zizania autem, filii sunt nequam.
{13:38} ager autem est mundus; bonum vero semen, hi sunt filii regni; zizania autem filii sunt Mali;
{13:38} ager autem est mundus bonum vero semen hii sunt filii regni zizania autem filii sunt nequam

NV and FS omit ‘piscium’ (fish), so that the net gathers ‘all kinds’, not ‘all kinds of fish’, in agreement with the Greek.
{13:47} Iterum simile est regnum cælorum sagenæ missæ in mare, et ex omni genere piscium congreganti.
{13:47} Iterum simile est regnum caelorum sagenae missae in mare et ex omni genere congreganti;
{13:47} iterum simile est regnum caelorum sagenae missae in mare et ex omni genere congreganti

NV changes ‘elegerunt’ (to select or choose) to ‘collegerunt’ (to gather), in agreement with the Greek.
{13:48} Quam, cum impleta esset, educentes, et secus littus sedentes, elegerunt bonis in vasa, malos autem foras miserunt.
{13:48} quam, cum impleta esset, educentes secus litus et sedentes collegerunt bonos in vasa, malos autem foras miserunt.
{13:48} quam cum impleta esset educentes et secus litus sedentes elegerunt bonos in vasa malos autem foras miserunt

NV adds the name of Herod’s brother, Philip, from the Greek.
{14:3} Herodes enim tenuit Ioannem, et alligavit eum: et posuit in carcerem propter Herodiadem uxorem fratris sui.
{14:3} Herodes enim tenuit Ioannem et alligavit eum et posuit in carcere propter Herodiadem uxorem Philippi fratris sui.
{14:3} Herodes enim tenuit Iohannem et alligavit eum et posuit in carcere propter Herodiadem uxorem fratris sui

NV omits ‘of him’ (ab eo), in agreement with Greek.
{14:7} Unde cum iuramento pollicitus est ei dare quodcumque postulasset ab eo.
{14:7} unde cum iuramento pollicitus est ei dare, quodcumque postulasset.
{14:7} unde cum iuramento pollicitus est ei dare quodcumque postulasset ab eo

FS changes ‘eis’ from ablative plural (on them) to genitive singular (of him). NV changes ‘eis’ to genitive plural ‘eorum’ (of them).
The Greek has a prepositional phrase here, so the use of the genitive plural does not agree with the Greek.
{14:14} Et exiens vidit turbam multam, et misertus est eis, et curavit languidos eorum.
{14:14} Et exiens vidit turbam multam et misertus est eorum et curavit languidos eorum.
{14:14} et exiens vidit turbam multam et misertus est eius et curavit languidos eorum

*The change to ‘eius’ in FS does not make sense grammatically, and does not agree with the Greek or the CV. See v. 9:36 where the same expression “videns autem turbas misertus est eis” uses ‘eis’ (in CV, FS, NV), not ‘eius’. Therefore, ‘eius’ in FS is most probably a typographical error. But the editors of NV seem not to have realized that it is a typographical error, and so they ‘corrected’ the singular genitive ‘eius’ to the plural ‘eorum,’ (the pronoun should be plural, but should not be genitive) despite using ‘eis’ not ‘eorum’ in v. 9:36.

I should also point out that the use of ‘eorum’ is a very noticeable error in the Latin. I suggest that some of the editors of the NV were not very knowledgeable in Latin, but rather in Greek. They strongly favor the Greek text, and that is where their expertise lies. Note that all four editions of the 1590 to 1598 Sistine/Clementine Vulgate have ‘eis’, as does the modern Tweedale edit (London, 2005). If the editors of the NV had consulted the Clementine Vulgate in any edition, they would likely have noticed the typographical error in the FS. It is very disturbing that any edition of the Vulgate could be produced, published, and approved, even though it ignores the Clementine Vulgate, in use by the Church for the last several hundred years in liturgical services, magisterial texts, scholarly works, private study, and devotion. The FS is a good text, but there is no reason not to consult multiple witnesses to the Latin scriptural tradition — unless you have the explicit intention to depart from that tradition in favor of a Greek-only, or in this case UBS-Greek-only approach.

NV adds ‘fere’ (about, approx.) from the Greek.
{14:21} Manducantium autem fuit numerus, quinque millia virorum, exceptis mulieribus, et parvulis.
{14:21} Manducantium autem fuit numerus fere quinque milia virorum, exceptis mulieribus et parvulis.
{14:21} manducantium autem fuit numerus quinque milia virorum exceptis mulieribus et parvulis

NV and FS omit ‘Jesus’, in accord with UBS Greek, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT.
{14:22} Et statim compulit Iesus discipulos ascendere in naviculam, et præcedere eum trans fretum, donec dimitteret turbas.
{14:22} Et statim iussit discipulos ascendere in naviculam et praecedere eum trans fretum, donec dimitteret turbas.
{14:22} et statim iussit discipulos ascendere in navicula et praecedere eum trans fretum donec dimitteret turbas

NV substantially rephrases the verse in accord with UBS Greek, contrary to TR, MT.
{14:24} navicula autem in medio mari iactabatur fluctibus: erat enim contrarius ventus.
{14:24} Navicula autem iam multis stadiis a terra distabat, fluctibus iactata; erat enim contrarius ventus.
{14:24} navicula autem in medio mari iactabatur fluctibus erat enim contrarius ventus

NV adds ‘discipuli’ in accord with Greek.
{14:26} Et videntes eum super mare ambulantem, turbati sunt, dicentes: Quia phantasma est. Et præ timore clamaverunt.
{14:26} Discipuli autem, videntes eum supra mare ambulantem, turbati sunt dicentes: ” Phantasma est “, et prae timore clamaverunt.
{14:26} et videntes eum supra mare ambulantem turbati sunt dicentes quia fantasma est et prae timore clamaverunt

NV omits ‘venerunt’ (drew near) in accord with UBS Greek, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT.
{14:33} Qui autem in navicula erant, venerunt, et adoraverunt eum, dicentes: Vere filius Dei es.
{14:33} Qui autem in navicula erant, adoraverunt eum dicentes: ” Vere Filius Dei es! “.
{14:33} qui autem in navicula erant venerunt et adoraverunt eum dicentes vere Filius Dei es

Even when the Latin source text agrees with significant Greek source texts, the NV still chooses the UBS wording over Clementine, Stuttgart, and significant Greek, texts.

NV changes the tense of ‘accesserunt’ from past to present, in accord with the Greek.
{15:1} Tunc accesserunt ad eum ab Ierosolymis Scribæ, et Pharisæi, dicentes:
{15:1} Tunc accedunt ad Iesum ab Hierosolymis pharisaei et scribae dicentes:
{15:1} tunc accesserunt ad eum ab Hierosolymis scribae et Pharisaei dicentes

The change from past to present tense in Latin does not make grammatical sense. It makes the text read, ‘Then the scribes and the Pharisees are coming to him from Jerusalem, saying:’ instead of ‘Then the scribes and the Pharisees came to him from Jerusalem, saying:’ Here we see that the NV ‘corrects’ the Latin to conform to the Greek, even when this leaves the Latin text grammatically incorrect. Again, it is as if the editors had a limited understanding of Latin, and no interest in preserving the Latin scriptural tradition. Every difference between the Latin and Greek is wiped away, in favor of the UBS Greek only, regardless of whether the new text is correctly worded in the Latin. Greek and Latin are grammatically very different languages, and so this type of unthinking forced conformity of the Latin to the Greek often results in a Latin text that is awkwardly worded or grammatically incorrect.

NV omits ‘or his mother’ and changes ‘commandment of God’ to ‘word of God’ in accord with UBS Greek, contrary (on both points) to CV, FS, TR, MT.
{15:6} et non honorificabit patrem suum, aut matrem suam: et irritum fecistis mandatum Dei propter traditionem vestram.
{15:6} non honorificabit patrem suum”; et irritum fecistis verbum Dei propter traditionem vestram.
{15:6} et non honorificabit patrem suum aut matrem et irritum fecistis mandatum Dei propter traditionem vestram

Again, it is clear that the NV rephrases the Vulgate to agree with the UBS Greek, even when the TR and MT agree with the Latin. There is a basis in both the Latin and Greek scriptural traditions to retain the Vulgate wording, and yet it is cast aside, making the NV a Latin version of the UBS Greek. The result is not very useful, since if a scholar wants to consult the UBS text, he would certainly prefer to look at the Greek text itself, rather than a Latin rendering of it. Also, the Council of Trent gave the Latin scriptural tradition a special place in the scriptural life of the Church, due in part to its long usage by the Living Tradition and the Living Magisterium. But the NV departs from the Latin scriptural tradition, substituting the Greek wording of the UBS text, so that the decision of Trent on the place that the Latin text has in the Church cannot be applied to the NV.

The reader may also have noticed by now that the Stuttgart text in Latin does not usually edit the CV to conform to the Greek. Rather, the Stuttgart text (FS) is a moderate edit of the Vulgate. The editors of FS Matthew clearly had in mind to keep to the Latin scriptural tradition, or at least to recapture the essence of Saint Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. Their editorial decisions in Matthew have kept the Latin text distinct from the Greek text, like two different co-equal witnesses to the truth of the Gospel. By comparison, the Nova Vulgata has subjugated the Latin scriptural tradition entirely to the Greek, like a slave to a master. The Stuttgart edit is what the Nova Vulgata should have been.

NV changes ‘canibus’ (dogs) to ‘catellis’ (puppies, pet dogs), in accord with the Greek.
{15:26} Qui respondens ait: Non est bonum sumere panem filiorum, et mittere canibus.
{15:26} Qui respondens ait: ” Non est bonum sumere panem filiorum et mittere catellis “.
{15:26} qui respondens ait non est bonum sumere panem filiorum et mittere canibus

This change assumes that there is no theological meaning, no benefit to the text, in having a word change from Jesus’ use of the word ‘canibus’ (dogs) to the Canaanite woman’s use of ‘catellis’ (pet dogs). To the contrary, Jesus was using dogs as a figure to indicate the distinction between the chosen people with their true faith and the pagans with their false religion. This is a true distinction. But the woman uses ‘pet dogs’ (or puppies) as an expression of an additional insight, that some outside of the chosen people have benefited from the true faith. And this is clearly true of her, since she calls Jesus ‘Lord, Son of David.’ She knew that the Jews expected the Messiah to be a descendent of David, and she expressed her belief that Jesus was the Messiah by calling Him ‘Son of David’. On the spiritual level of meaning, we can apply her insight to the Church today. Some who are not formal members of the house of salvation, the Church, nevertheless draw benefits from the Church in many ways. So the Latin wording makes a particular meaning in the text more readily apparent. But the NV edit wipes away that benefit found in the Latin text. Why? because it doesn’t agree with the UBS text.

NV adds ‘debiles sanos’ (the disabled healthy) in accord with the UBS and TR (but lacking in Westcott/Hort, 1881).
{15:31} ita ut turbæ mirarentur videntes mutos loquentes, claudos ambulantes, cæcos videntes: et magnificabant Deum Israel.
{15:31} ita ut turba miraretur videntes mutos loquentes, debiles sanos et claudos ambulantes et caecos videntes. Et magnificabant Deum Israel.
{15:31} ita ut turbae mirarentur videntes mutos loquentes clodos ambulantes caecos videntes et magnificabant Deum Israhel

NV omits ‘dederunt’ (gave) in accord with the Greek.
{15:36} Et accipiens septem panes, et pisces, et gratias agens, fregit, et dedit discipulis suis, et discipuli dederunt populo.
{15:36} et accipiens septem panes et pisces et gratias agens fregit et dedit discipulis, discipuli autem turbis.
{15:36} et accipiens septem panes et pisces et gratias agens fregit et dedit discipulis suis et discipuli dederunt populo

NV omits scire (to know, cf. v. 3-4) in accord with the Greek.
{16:3} Et mane: Hodie tempestas, rutilat enim triste cælum.
{16:3} et mane: “Hodie tempestas, rutilat enim triste caelum”. Faciem quidem caeli diiudicare nostis, signa autem temporum non potestis.
{16:3} et mane hodie tempestas rutilat enim triste caelum

{16:4} Faciem ergo cæli diiudicare nostis: signa autem temporum non potestis scire? Generatio mala et adultera signum quærit: et signum non dabitur ei, nisi signum Ionæ prophetæ. Et relictis illis, abiit.
{16:4} Generatio mala et adultera signum quaerit, et signum non dabitur ei, nisi signum Ionae “. Et, relictis illis, abiit.
{16:4} faciem ergo caeli diiudicare nostis signa autem temporum non potestis generatio mala et adultera signum quaerit et signum non dabitur ei nisi signum Ionae et relictis illis abiit

The result of omitting scire (to know) is that the sentence in Latin becomes, at best, awkwardly worded. This saying: “So then, you know how to judge the appearance of the sky, but you are unable to know the signs of the times.” becomes “So then, you know how to judge the appearance of the sky, but the signs of the times you are unable.” It is as awkward in Latin as it is in English. The saying is still comprehensible, but here we see that the NV unswervingly, even unthinkingly, conforms the Latin to the Greek, even to the detriment of the Latin text.

NV omits ‘eius’ (his) in accord with the UBS Greek, contrary to the TR, MT.
{16:5} Et cum venissent discipuli eius trans fretum, obliti sunt panes accipere.
{16:5} Et cum venissent discipuli trans fretum, obliti sunt panes accipere.
{16:5} et cum venissent discipuli eius trans fretum obliti sunt panes accipere

Again, the NV conforms the Latin to the UBS Greek, even to the extent of omitting a pronoun to achieve that conformity, and even though the Latin text is uncontested, and the Greek TR and MT agree with the Latin. Minor details of the Latin text are change to conform to the UBS Greek, regardless of all other considerations. This approach to Sacred Scripture in practice utterly rejects the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent on the Canon of Scripture and on the place that the old Latin vulgate has in determining the canonicity of the contents of each book.

NV adds ‘Jesus’ in accord with the Greek.
{16:6} Qui dixit illis: Intuemini, et cavete a fermento Pharisæorum, et Sadducæorum.
{16:6} Iesus autem dixit illis: ” Intuemini et cavete a fermento pharisaeorum et sadducaeorum “.
{16:6} qui dixit illis intuemini et cavete a fermento Pharisaeorum et Sadducaeorum

NV changes ‘quare’ (why) to ‘quomodo’ (how) and adds ‘sed’ (but) to agree with the Greek UBS.
{16:11} Quare non intelligitis, quia non de pane dixi vobis: Cavete a fermento Pharisæorum, et Sadducæorum?
{16:11} Quomodo non intellegitis quia non de panibus dixi vobis? Sed cavete a fermento pharisaeorum et sadducaeorum “.
{16:11} quare non intellegitis quia non de pane dixi vobis cavete a fermento Pharisaeorum et Sadducaeorum

The change to ‘quomodo’ from ‘quare’ makes the text awkward in Latin, but this seems to be of no concern to the editors of the NV.

NV omits ‘et’ (and) from the start of the sentence, in accord with the Greek UBS.
{16:19} Et tibi dabo claves regni cælorum. Et quodcumque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum et in cælis: et quodcumque solveris super terram, erit solutum et in cælis.
{16:19} Tibi dabo claves regni caelorum; et quodcumque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum in caelis, et quodcumque solveris super terram, erit solutum in caelis “.
{16:19} et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum et quodcumque ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in caelis et quodcumque solveris super terram erit solutum in caelis

The NV omits ‘et’ (and), even though it is found in the Latin and the Greek TR and MT, and even though this change has no real effect on the text at all. There is no benefit to omitting ‘et’ and there is support for the word, in Greek and Latin sources. Yet it is dropped solely to force the Latin to agree with the Greek UBS, even in small details.

These many minor and major changes to the Latin text, all in order to conform the Latin to the Greek UBS have the effect of destroying the Latin scriptural tradition, and replacing it with a subset of the Greek manuscripts, critically edited in such a way that omissions are frequent, and then translated into Latin. What is the usefulness of a Latin version of a set of Greek texts? If a scholar wishes to know how the Greek UBS text reads, he can refer to that text in Greek. No scholar would use the Latin NV in order to discover what the Greek UBS text says. And no scholar is able to use the NV to discover what the Latin scriptural tradition says, since that tradition is not faithfully preserved, but is wholly rejected, in the NV.

NV omits the word ‘Jesus’ in order to conform to the UBS Greek.
{16:20} Tunc præcepit discipulis suis ut nemini dicerent quia ipse esset Iesus Christus.
{16:20} Tunc praecepit discipulis, ut nemini dicerent quia ipse esset Christus.
{16:20} tunc praecepit discipulis suis ut nemini dicerent quia ipse esset Iesus Christus
The Latin and the TR have the word Jesus. The NV ignores these sources, if favor of the UBS text.

NV changes the order of the list — elders, and scribes, and chief priests — reversing the order of the last two, in accord with the Greek text.
{16:21} Exinde cœpit Iesus ostendere discipulis suis, quia oporteret eum ire Ierosolymam, et multa pati a senioribus, et Scribis, et principibus sacerdotum, et occidi, et tertia die resurgere.
{16:21} Exinde coepit Iesus ostendere discipulis suis quia oporteret eum ire Hierosolymam et multa pati a senioribus et principibus sacerdotum et scribis et occidi et tertia die resurgere.
{16:21} exinde coepit Iesus ostendere discipulis suis quia oporteret eum ire Hierosolymam et multa pati a senioribus et scribis et principibus sacerdotum et occidi et tertia die resurgere

What is the purpose of making this kind of change? The NV treats the Latin scriptural tradition as if it has absolutely no standing to decide how the text should read, even in the smallest details. Notice that FS does not take this approach. The FS of Matthew reads like a moderate edit of the CV, thereby continuing the Latin scriptural tradition. The NV shows no respect at all for the Latin text as a witness to the Gospel, so that, even in small details, every difference in the Latin is wiped away. The words are still in Latin, but they represent solely the Greek UBS reading of the text. Even the TR and MT combined with the CV is not given any weight in these many editorial decisions.

NV changes the Latin verse divisions and numbering to conform the Greek text.
{17:14} Et cum venisset ad turbam, accessit ad eum homo genibus provolutus ante eum, dicens: Domine, miserere filio meo, quia lunaticus est, et male patitur: nam sæpe cadit in ignem, et crebro in aquam.
{17:14} Et cum venissent ad turbam, accessit ad eum homo genibus provolutus ante eum
{17:14} et cum venisset ad turbam accessit ad eum homo genibus provolutus ante eum dicens Domine miserere filii mei quia lunaticus est et male patitur nam saepe cadit in ignem et crebro in aquam

This change in verse numbering affects the text for the remainder of this chapter in Matthew.

NV changes ‘Because of your unbelief’ to ‘Because of your little faith’.
{17:19} Dixit illis Iesus: Propter incredulitatem vestram. Amen quippe dico vobis, si habueritis fidem, sicut granum sinapis, dicetis monti huic, Transi hinc illuc, et transibit, et nihil impossibile erit vobis.
{17:20} Ille autem dicit illis: ” Propter modicam fidem vestram. Amen quippe dico vobis: Si habueritis fidem sicut granum sinapis, dicetis monti huic: “Transi hinc illuc!”, et transibit, et nihil impossibile erit vobis “.
{17:19} dicit illis propter incredulitatem vestram amen quippe dico vobis si habueritis fidem sicut granum sinapis dicetis monti huic transi hinc et transibit et nihil inpossibile erit vobis

The CV, FS, TR and MT all have ‘your unbelief’ and yet the NV changes to the text to conform to the UBS. Again, we see that even the uncontested Latin scriptural tradition, supported by important Greek texts, carried no weight with the editors of the NV.

NV omits ‘Jesus’ in accord with Greek UBS, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT.
{18:2} Et advocans Iesus parvulum, statuit eum in medio eorum,
{18:2} Et advocans parvulum, statuit eum in medio eorum
{18:2} et advocans Iesus parvulum statuit eum in medio eorum

The NV of Matthew is a Latin representation of the UBS text, one that ignores any Greek or Latin texts in disagreement with UBS. There appears to be no scholarly effort to evaluate the different source texts and to make a scholarly judgment as to which source to use. The Latin is merely forced to conform to the UBS Greek text, regardless of other considerations.

NV and FS change ‘with one eye’ to ‘one-eyed’ in accord with Greek.
{18:9} Et si oculus tuus scandalizat te, erue eum, et proiice abs te: bonum tibi est cum uno oculo in vitam intrare, quam duos oculos habentem mitti in gehennam ignis.
{18:9} Et si oculus tuus scandalizat te, erue eum et proice abs te: bonum tibi est unoculum in vitam intrare, quam duos oculos habentem mitti in gehennam ignis.
{18:9} et si oculus tuus scandalizat te erue eum et proice abs te bonum tibi est unoculum in vitam intrare quam duos oculos habentem mitti in gehennam ignis

NV omits verse 11, in accord with UBS, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT.
{18:11} Venit enim filius hominis salvare quod perierat.
{18:11} –null–
{18:11} venit enim Filius hominis salvare quod perierat

NV changes ‘non audierit’ (will not listen) to ‘noluerit audire’ (will refuse to listen).
{18:17} Quod si non audierit eos: dic ecclesiæ. si autem ecclesiam non audierit: sit tibi sicut ethnicus, et publicanus.
{18:17} quod si noluerit audire eos, dic ecclesiae; si autem et ecclesiam noluerit audire, sit tibi sicut ethnicus et publicanus.
{18:17} quod si non audierit eos dic ecclesiae si autem et ecclesiam non audierit sit tibi sicut ethnicus et publicanus

This is an example of a good edit by the NV, where the Greek text is used to clarify the Latin text, not to disregard and replace it. Unfortunately, the NV conforms to the UBS Greek regardless of whether or not the Latin text benefits.

NV omits the pronoun ‘eius’ twice, to conform to UBS, contrary to CV, TR, MT. Notice that FS omits one ‘eius’ not the other.
{18:25} Cum autem non haberet unde redderet, iussit eum dominus eius venundari, et uxorem eius, et filios, et omnia quæ habebat, et reddi.
{18:25} Cum autem non haberet, unde redderet, iussit eum dominus venumdari et uxorem et filios et omnia, quae habebat, et reddi.
{18:25} cum autem non haberet unde redderet iussit eum dominus venundari et uxorem eius et filios et omnia quae habebat et reddi

NV omits ‘all’ (omnia), in accord with UBS and MT, contrary to CV, FS, TR.
{18:29} Et procidens conservus eius, rogabat eum, dicens: Patientiam habe in me, et omnia reddam tibi.
{18:29} Procidens igitur conservus eius rogabat eum dicens: “Patientiam habe in me, et reddam tibi”.
{18:29} et procidens conservus eius rogabat eum dicens patientiam habe in me et omnia reddam tibi

NV omits ‘to them’ (eis) and changes ‘made’ (fecit) to ‘created’ (creavit), in accord with UBS Greek, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT.
{19:4} Qui respondens, ait eis: Non legistis, quia qui fecit hominem ab initio, masculum, et feminam fecit eos? et dixit:
{19:4} Qui respondens ait: ” Non legistis quia, qui creavit ab initio, masculum et feminam fecit eos
{19:4} qui respondens ait eis non legistis quia qui fecit ab initio masculum et feminam fecit eos

NV omits ‘and whoever will have married her who has been dismissed, commits adultery’, in accord with UBS, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT.
{19:9} Dico autem vobis, quia quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam, nisi ob fornicationem, et aliam duxerit, mœchatur: et qui dimissam duxerit, mœchatur.
{19:9} Dico autem vobis quia quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam, nisi ob fornicationem, et aliam duxerit, moechatur “.
{19:9} dico autem vobis quia quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam nisi ob fornicationem et aliam duxerit moechatur et qui dimissam duxerit moechatur

NV omits ‘Deus’ (God) from the sentence ‘One is good’, in accord with UBS, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT.
{19:17} Qui dixit ei: Quid me interrogas de bono? Unus est bonus, Deus. Si autem vis ad vitam ingredi, serva mandata.
{19:17} ” Quid me interrogas de bono? Unus est bonus. Si autem vis ad vitam ingredi, serva mandata “.
{19:17} qui dixit ei quid me interrogas de bono unus est bonus Deus si autem vis ad vitam ingredi serva mandata

How does omitting the word ‘God’ from the sentence ‘One is good’ improve the text? It does not. And the Latin sources all agree that ‘God’ should be included in the verse. The NV is in Latin, and yet, amazingly, the Latin scriptural tradition carried no weight with the editors of the NV. And even when significant Greek sources (TR and MT) agree with the Latin, no weight is given to this agreement. The NV unthinkingly alters the Latin text to agree with the UBS. The only exceptions seem to be editing errors and changes made out of political correctness.

NV omits ‘your’ (tuam) referring to father and mother, in accord with FS, UBS, MT. The TR has your referring to father, but not mother (though it is implied).
{19:19} Honora patrem tuum, et matrem tuam, et diliges proximum tuum sicut teipsum.
{19:19} honora patrem et matrem et diliges proximum tuum sicut teipsum “.
{19:19} honora patrem et matrem et diliges proximum tuum sicut te ipsum

NV and FS omit ‘from my youth’ (a iuventute mea), in accord with UBS, contrary to CV, TR, MT.
{19:20} Dicit illi adolescens: Omnia hæc custodivi a iuventute mea, quid adhuc mihi deest?
{19:20} Dicit illi adulescens: ” Omnia haec custodivi. Quid adhuc mihi deest? “.
{19:20} dicit illi adulescens omnia haec custodivi quid adhuc mihi deest

There is a loss of meaning to this omission. In the former case (19:19), omitting ‘your’ does not harm the meaning, since ‘your’ is at least implied. Of course, including ‘your’ also does not harm the meaning, but rather makes it more accessible. But in the latter case (19:20), omitting ‘from my youth’ harms the meaning of the text by omitting a truth that is not otherwise stated or implied in the passage. The first rule of Bible translation, editing, and commentary should be: Primum non nocere (First, do no harm.) But the first rule of the NV is clearly: First, follow the UBS. And the first rule of the UBS editors is apparently: When in doubt, throw out. Modicæ fidei, quare dubitasti?

NV changes ‘house’ to the plural (domos), in accord with the Greek. NV omits ‘and wife’ (aut uxorem), in accord with UBS, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT.
{19:29} Et omnis, qui reliquerit domum, vel fratres, aut sorores, aut patrem, aut matrem, aut uxorem, aut filios, aut agros propter nomen meum, centuplum accipiet, et vitam æternam possidebit.
{19:29} Et omnis, qui reliquit domos vel fratres aut sorores aut patrem aut matrem aut filios aut agros propter nomen meum, centuplum accipiet et vitam aeternam possidebit.
{19:29} et omnis qui reliquit domum vel fratres aut sorores aut patrem aut matrem aut uxorem aut filios aut agros propter nomen meum centuplum accipiet et vitam aeternam possidebit

NV adds ‘de meis’ (concerning my own) in accord with the Greek.
{20:15} Aut non licet mihi quod volo, facere? an oculus tuus nequam est, quia ego bonus sum?
{20:15} Aut non licet mihi, quod volo, facere de meis? An oculus tuus nequam est, quia ego bonus sum?”.
{20:15} aut non licet mihi quod volo facere an oculus tuus nequam est quia ego bonus sum

NV omits ‘For many are called, but few are chosen’ in accord with UBS, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT.
{20:16} Sic erunt novissimi primi, et primi novissimi. multi enim sunt vocati, pauci vero electi.
{20:16} Sic erunt novissimi primi, et primi novissimi “.
{20:16} sic erunt novissimi primi et primi novissimi multi sunt enim vocati pauci autem electi

NV rephrases the Latin from ‘his opus habet’ to ‘eos necessarios habet’.
{21:3} et si quis vobis aliquid dixerit, dicite quia Dominus his opus habet: et confestim dimittet eos.
{21:3} Et si quis vobis aliquid dixerit, dicite: “Dominus eos necessarios habet”, et confestim dimittet eos “.
{21:3} et si quis vobis aliquid dixerit dicite quia Dominus his opus habet et confestim dimittet eos

The Greek text (UBS, TR, MT) basically reads as these three words: of-them (genitive plural) need (singular) has (present tense, third person singular). The CV and FS Latin is essentially the same three words, in terms of meaning and grammar, in the same order. The rephrasing changes ‘need’ to the plural, making it less similar to the Greek, and changes the pronoun from genitive to accusative. The new word ‘necessarios’ has perhaps a slightly different connotation, though it is difficult to say what that would be. This edit is inexplicable.

NV omits ‘of God’ from ‘the temple of God’ (templum Dei), in accord with UBS, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT.
{21:12} Et intravit Iesus in templum Dei, et eiiciebat omnes vendentes, et ementes in templo, et mensas numulariorum, et cathedras vendentium columbas evertit:
{21:12} Et intravit Iesus in templum et eiciebat omnes vendentes et ementes in templo, et mensas nummulariorum evertit et cathedras vendentium columbas,
{21:12} et intravit Iesus in templum Dei et eiciebat omnes vendentes et ementes in templo et mensas nummulariorum et cathedras vendentium columbas evertit

NV omits ‘when…had heard’ (cum audisset), in accord with UBS, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT.
{22:7} Rex autem cum audisset, iratus est: et missis exercitibus suis, perdidit homicidas illos, et civitatem illorum succendit.
{22:7} Rex autem iratus est et, missis exercitibus suis, perdidit homicidas illos et civitatem illorum succendit.
{22:7} rex autem cum audisset iratus est et missis exercitibus suis perdidit homicidas illos et civitatem illorum succendit

NV changes ‘autem’ in FS to ‘enim’, in accord with the Greek.
{22:14} Multi enim sunt vocati, pauci vero electi.
{22:14} Multi enim sunt vocati, pauci vero electi “.
{22:14} multi autem sunt vocati pauci vero electi

The agreement of the NV and CV on this point is only coincidental. The NV continues to conform to the UBS Greek, without regard for the CV.

NV omits ‘of God’ from ‘angels of God’, in accord with UBS, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT.
{22:30} In resurrectione enim neque nubent, neque nubentur: sed erunt sicut angeli Dei in cælo.
{22:30} in resurrectione enim neque nubent neque nubentur, sed sunt sicut angeli in caelo.
{22:30} in resurrectione enim neque nubent neque nubentur sed sunt sicut angeli Dei in caelo

There appears to be no editorial reason for omitting ‘of God’ from the expression ‘angels of God’, other than to automatically conform the Latin text to the UBS Greek text, ignoring the Latin scriptural tradition as well as all other Greek texts.

NV changes the order of the words, from ‘a Deo dicente vobis’ to ‘vobis a Deo dicente’, in accord with the word order of the Greek.
{22:31} De resurrectione autem mortuorum non legistis quod dictum est a Deo dicente vobis:
{22:31} De resurrectione autem mortuorum non legistis, quod dictum est vobis a Deo dicente:
{22:31} de resurrectione autem mortuorum non legistis quod dictum est a Deo dicente vobis

NV capitalizes ‘Law’ and ‘Prophets’.
{22:40} In his duobus mandatis universa lex pendet, et prophetæ.
{22:40} In his duobus mandatis universa Lex pendet et Prophetae “.
{22:40} in his duobus mandatis universa lex pendet et prophetae

This edit is unusual in that it is an editorial decision independent of FS and UBS. However, such edits are few and far between, and are typically on only minor points, such as spelling, capitalization, or punctuation.

NV changes ‘your footstool’ (scabellum pedum tuorum) to ‘under your feet’ (sub pedibus tuis), in accord with UBS, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT.
{22:44} Dixit Dominus Domino meo: sede a dextris meis, donec ponam inimicos tuos scabellum pedum tuorum?
{22:44} “Dixit Dominus Domino meo: Sede a dextris meis, donec ponam inimicos tuos sub pedibus tuis”?
{22:44} dixit Dominus Domino meo sede a dextris meis donec ponam inimicos tuos scabillum pedum tuorum

NV changes ‘who is in heaven’ to ‘heavenly’ (caelestis), in accord with UBS, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT.
{23:9} Et patrem nolite vocare vobis super terram: unus est enim Pater vester, qui in cælis est.
{23:9} Et Patrem nolite vocare vobis super terram, unus enim est Pater vester, caelestis.
{23:9} et patrem nolite vocare vobis super terram unus enim est Pater vester qui in caelis est

NV and FS omit verse 14, in accord with UBS, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT. (But MT has verses 13 and 14 transposed.)
{23:14} Væ vobis Scribæ, et Pharisæi hypocritæ: quia comeditis domos viduarum, orationes longas orantes: propter hoc amplius accipietis iudicium.
{23:14} –null–
{23:14} –null–

The omission of this verse harms the text. The Council of Trent declared not only which books are inspired and canonical, but also which parts of each book are inspired and canonical: every book is inspired and canonical, in all their parts, as found in the old Latin Vulgate. But modern-day Biblical scholars feel no remorse in omitting many words and phrases, and more than a few entire verses, from the Bible, despite being uncontested in the Latin Vulgate. The number of words omitted from the NV, yet found in the CV is easily over 100, and that is only for the Gospel of Matthew. The New Testament probably has at least several hundred words dropped from the Canon of Scripture at the sole discretion of a group of mostly Protestant scholars at the United Bible Societies. The entire Bible probably has several thousand words dropped from the Canon of Scripture in the UBS texts, and consequently, in the Nova Vulgata, which has somehow become the normative text of the Bible in Latin for the Catholic Church.

The Fathers of the Council of Trent would be alarmed and outraged if they were still alive to see that a group of Protestant scholars, who adhere to the many heresies they so strongly condemned, have in effect become the sole judges over which words, phrases, and verses are sacred and canonical, in contradict to the decision of the same Council that the contents of each book in the old Latin vulgate determines the Canon. And if, in their day, the monks at a Catholic monastery were to edit and publish a Latin Bible in strict conformity to the decisions of those Protestant scholars as to which parts of each book is canonical, the Council would certainly have excommunicated the entire lot of them.

NV omits ‘et paropsidis’ (and the dish), in accord with UBS, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT and Westcott-Hort.
{23:26} Pharisæe cæce, munda prius quod intus est calicis, et paropsidis, ut fiat id, quod deforis est, mundum.
{23:26} Pharisaee caece, munda prius, quod intus est calicis, ut fiat et id, quod de foris eius est, mundum.
{23:26} Pharisaee caece munda prius quod intus est calicis et parapsidis ut fiat et id quod de foris est mundum

NV adds ‘not’ (non) to ‘do you see’ (videtis), in accord with the Greek.
{24:2} Ipse autem respondens dixit illis: Videtis hæc omnia? Amen dico vobis, non relinquetur hic lapis super lapidem, qui non destruatur.
{24:2} ipse autem respondens dixit eis: ” Non videtis haec omnia? Amen dico vobis: Non relinquetur hic lapis super lapidem, qui non destruetur “.
{24:2} ipse autem respondens dixit eis videtis haec omnia amen dico vobis non relinquetur hic lapis super lapidem qui non destruatur

This change has no effect on the meaning of the verse, so why was the change made? It was made to conform the Latin text to the Greek text, even when there is no benefit or higher purpose. The Latin becomes a slave to the Greek, following its orders even when those orders have no benefit.

NV omits ‘these things’ (haec) from ‘for these things must be’ (or ‘this must be’), in accord with the Greek.
{24:6} Audituri enim estis prælia, et opiniones præliorum. Videte ne turbemini. oportet enim hæc fieri, sed nondum est finis.
{24:6} Audituri enim estis proelia et opiniones proeliorum. Videte, ne turbemini; oportet enim fieri, sed nondum est finis.
{24:6} audituri autem estis proelia et opiniones proeliorum videte ne turbemini oportet enim haec fieri sed nondum est finis

The result of omitting ‘haec’ is that the sentence loses its subject, and the subject is then implied by the ending of the verb. The meaning is still apparent, but the problem is that there is no justification for dropping this word from the Latin text, other than to conform to the Greek text. Why should a simple pronoun, which makes the text read more smoothly and clearly in Latin, be taken away? The NV conforms the Latin to the Greek text, even to the detriment of the Latin reading.

Note that Challoner’s translation of this verse, and mine as well, uses the plural ‘these things’, even though the Latin is in the singular. This change clarifies the meaning of the text, since the pronoun refers to ‘wars and rumors of wars’ (or battles), which is plural. Use of the singular might mislead the reader into thinking that the subsequent statement refers to one particular event, not to the set of events.

NV omits ‘pestilence and’ from the list of afflictions, in accord with UBS, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT.
{24:7} consurget enim gens in gentem, et regnum in regnum, et erunt pestilentiæ, et fames, et terræmotus per loca.
{24:7} Consurget enim gens in gentem, et regnum in regnum, et erunt fames et terrae motus per loca;
{24:7} consurget enim gens in gentem et regnum in regnum et erunt pestilentiae et fames et terraemotus per loca

This omission harms the text and is contrary to the teaching of the Council of Trent on the inspired Canon of Scripture, which is defined by the contents of the old Latin Vulgate, including all the books and all their parts. This is the result when Catholics permit a group of scholars, most of whom are Protestant, to have virtually complete control over what is or is not to be included in the inspired Canon of Scripture. Protestant scholars are willing to omit seven books and parts of two other books from the Canon, and so they are also willing to omit numerous words and phrases from the Canon as well. Their reason for omitting seven books, and parts of two other books, and their reason for omitting many words, phrases, and more than a few verses, is irrelevant. The Canon is a matter of faith, as defined by an Ecumenical Council.

The NV follows the UBS text very closely. The UBS text is mainly the work of Protestant scholars, who certainly do not regard the teachings of the Council of Trent, a Council that strongly condemned numerous Protestant heresies, as authoritative. By conforming the Latin text to the UBS Greek, ignoring all other Greek sources and every Latin source, the NV editors have produced what is essentially a Protestant version of the Latin Vulgate, albeit with the Deuterocanonical texts included.

NV omits ‘and’ (et), in accord with the Greek.
{24:17} et qui in tecto, non descendat tollere aliquid de domo sua:
{24:17} qui in tecto, non descendat tollere aliquid de domo sua;
{24:17} et qui in tecto non descendat tollere aliquid de domo sua

Why does the NV omit the simple word ‘and’ from this verse? It is merely because it is not found in the Greek. The NV conforms the Latin to the Greek, even in small details, even when there is no benefit to the text. Contradictorily, scholars who support this type of very literal conformity to the UBS Greek, also tend to support very loose translations from the Greek, translations that take appalling liberties with the text. The Latin is not permitted to differ from the Greek even in minor details, but translations are permitted to stray very far from every source text. Such is the state of Biblical scholarship today.

NV changes ‘majesty’ (maiestate) to ‘glory’ (gloria), in accord with the Greek. NV also move the word ‘multa’ (much, great) to the end of the sentence, in accord with the Greek.
{24:30} et tunc parebit signum Filii hominis in cælo: et tunc plangent omnes tribus terræ: et videbunt Filium hominis venientem in nubibus cæli cum virtute multa, et maiestate.
{24:30} Et tunc parebit signum Filii hominis in caelo, et tunc plangent omnes tribus terrae et videbunt Filium hominis venientem in nubibus caeli cum virtute et gloria multa;
{24:30} et tunc parebit signum Filii hominis in caelo et tunc plangent omnes tribus terrae et videbunt Filium hominis venientem in nubibus caeli cum virtute multa et maiestate

It is very disturbing to see that even the order of the words in Latin is made to conform to the Greek. The problem is not that the Latin is harmed or improved by the change in word order, but that this changes shows a complete disregard for the Latin scriptural tradition.

NV omits ‘et voca’ (and … voice) changing the reading from ‘with a trumpet and a great voice’ to ‘with a great trumpet’, in accord with the UBS Greek. The TR and MT Greek have ‘sound’ (phones), whereas the Latin ‘voce’ can mean voice or sound. So there is a type of agreement between the CV, FS and TR, MT.
{24:31} Et mittet angelos suos cum tuba, et voce magna: et congregabunt electos eius a quattuor ventis, a summis cælorum usque ad terminos eorum.
{24:31} et mittet angelos suos cum tuba magna, et congregabunt electos eius a quattuor ventis, a summis caelorum usque ad terminos eorum.
{24:31} et mittet angelos suos cum tuba et voce magna et congregabunt electos eius a quattuor ventis a summis caelorum usque ad terminos eorum

This omission changes the meaning of the text. Instead of the sound (or voice) being great, now it is the trumpet that is called great.

NV adds ‘nor the Son’ (neque Filius), in accord with UBS, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT.
{24:36} De die autem illa, et hora nemo scit, neque angeli cælorum, nisi solus Pater.
{24:36} De die autem illa et hora nemo scit, neque angeli caelorum neque Filius, nisi Pater solus.
{24:36} de die autem illa et hora nemo scit neque angeli caelorum nisi Pater solus

The text benefits from this addition. However, the pattern of editorial decisions in the NV plainly reveals that this and other changes were made solely on the basis of the text of the UBS Greek, regardless of the harm or benefit to the text.

NV changes ‘hour’ (hora) to ‘day’ (die), in accord with UBS, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT.
{24:42} Vigilate ergo, quia nescitis qua hora Dominus vester venturus sit.
{24:42} Vigilate ergo, quia nescitis qua die Dominus vester venturus sit.
{24:42} vigilate ergo quia nescitis qua hora Dominus vester venturus sit

NV agrees with CV, contrary to FS.
{24:43} Illud autem scitote, quoniam si sciret paterfamilias qua hora fur venturus esset, vigilaret utique, et non sineret perfodi domum suam.
{24:43} Illud autem scitote quoniam si sciret pater familias qua hora fur venturus esset, vigilaret utique et non sineret perfodi domum suam.
{24:43} illud autem scitote quoniam si sciret pater familias qua hora fur venturus esset vigilaret utique et non sineret perfodiri domum suam

NV moves the pronoun ‘suis’ (their) to the end of the sentence, in accord with the Greek.
{25:4} prudentes vero acceperunt oleum in vasis suis cum lampadibus.
{25:4} prudentes vero acceperunt oleum in vasis cum lampadibus suis.
{25:4} prudentes vero acceperunt oleum in vasis suis cum lampadibus

There is no benefit to the Latin text to this change in word order. Also, changes in word order generally are not made in the NV if it is contrary to the UBS word order. The editors of the FS saw no need to change the Latin word order.

NV omits ‘venit’, changing ‘Behold, the groom is arriving!’ into ‘Behold, the groom!’, in accord with UBS, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT.
{25:6} Media autem nocte clamor factus est: Ecce sponsus venit, exite obviam ei.
{25:6} Media autem nocte clamor factus est: “Ecce sponsus! Exite obviam ei”.
{25:6} media autem nocte clamor factus est ecce sponsus venit exite obviam ei

NV agree with CV, contrary to FS.
{25:14} Sicut enim homo peregre proficiscens, vocavit servos suos, et tradidit illis bona sua.
{25:14} Sicut enim homo peregre proficiscens vocavit servos suos et tradidit illis bona sua.
{25:14} sicut enim homo proficiscens vocavit servos suos et tradidit illis bona sua

NV omits ‘videtur’ (seems), in accord with the Greek.
{25:29} omni enim habenti dabitur, et abundabit: ei autem, qui non habet, et quod videtur habere, auferetur ab eo.
{25:29} omni enim habenti dabitur, et abundabit; ei autem, qui non habet, et quod habet, auferetur ab eo.
{25:29} omni enim habenti dabitur et abundabit ei autem qui non habet et quod videtur habere auferetur ab eo

NV changes the Latin word ‘atrium’ to the word ‘aulam’ (a Latin word derived from Greek), in accord with the Greek text.
{26:3} Tunc congregati sunt principes sacerdotum, et seniores populi in atrium principis sacerdotum, qui dicebatur Caiphas:
{26:3} Tunc congregati sunt principes sacerdotum et seniores populi in aulam principis sacerdotum, qui dicebatur Caiphas,
{26:3} tunc congregati sunt principes sacerdotum et seniores populi in atrium principis sacerdotum qui dicebatur Caiaphas

NV changes ‘in corpus meum’ (on my body) to ‘supra corpus meum’ (still reads the same: on my body).
{26:12} Mittens enim hæc unguentum hoc in corpus meum: ad sepeliendum me fecit.
{26:12} Mittens enim haec unguentum hoc supra corpus meum, ad sepeliendum me fecit.
{26:12} mittens enim haec unguentum hoc in corpus meum ad sepeliendum me fecit

This change has no apparent reason other than to make the Latin conform slavishly to the Greek text, even in minor details.

NV omits ‘his…disciples’ from ‘his twelve disciples’, in accord with the UBS, TR, MT, contrary to the Latin and the Westcott-Hort Greek text.
{26:20} Vespere autem facto, discumbebat cum duodecim discipulis suis.
{26:20} Vespere autem facto, discumbebat cum Duodecim.
{26:20} vespere autem facto discumbebat cum duodecim discipulis

NV omits ‘et’ (and) from ‘Take and eat’, in accord with the Greek.
{26:26} Cœnantibus autem eis, accepit Iesus panem, et benedixit, ac fregit, deditque discipulis suis, et ait: Accipite, et comedite: hoc est corpus meum.
{26:26} Cenantibus autem eis, accepit Iesus panem et benedixit ac fregit deditque discipulis et ait: ” Accipite, comedite: hoc est corpus meum “.
{26:26} cenantibus autem eis accepit Iesus panem et benedixit ac fregit deditque discipulis suis et ait accipite et comedite hoc est corpus meum

NV changes ‘which will be poured out’ to ‘which is poured out’, in accord with FS and the Greek.
{26:28} Hic est enim sanguis meus novi testamenti, qui pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.
{26:28} hic est enim sanguis meus novi testamenti, qui pro multis effunditur in remissionem peccatorum.
{26:28} hic est enim sanguis meus novi testamenti qui pro multis effunditur in remissionem peccatorum

NV omits ‘cup’ (calix) from ‘if this cup cannot pass by, unless I drink it’, in accord with UBS, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT.
{26:42} Iterum secundo abiit, et oravit, dicens: Pater mi, si non potest hic calix transire nisi bibam illum, fiat voluntas tua.
{26:42} Iterum secundo abiit et oravit dicens: ” Pater mi, si non potest hoc transire, nisi bibam illud, fiat voluntas tua “.
{26:42} iterum secundo abiit et oravit dicens Pater mi si non potest hic calix transire nisi bibam illum fiat voluntas tua

When ‘cup’ is omitted from ‘if this cup cannot pass by, unless I drink it’, the result makes much less sense: ‘if this cannot pass by, unless I drink it’. The pronoun ‘it’ in ‘unless I drink it’ now refers back to the pronoun ‘this’, and we have to go back several verses to the use of the word ‘cup’ to understand what the phrase ‘unless I drink it’ means. The omission of ‘cup’ harms the text. The inclusion of ‘cup’ is supported by Latin sources, and by substantial Greek sources. So why does NV omit ‘cup’ from the Latin? Solely because it is omitted in the UBS critical text, regardless of the detrimental effect on the verse, and regardless of support for the word in several other important sources.

NV omits ‘apud vos’ (with you) ‘everyday I was with you’, in accord with UBS, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT.
{26:55} In illa hora dixit Iesus turbis: Tamquam ad latronem existis cum gladiis, et fustibus comprehendere me: quotidie apud vos sedebam docens in templo, et non me tenuistis.
{26:55} In illa hora dixit Iesus turbis: ” Tamquam ad latronem existis cum gladiis et fustibus comprehendere me? Cotidie sedebam docens in templo, et non me tenuistis “.
{26:55} in illa hora dixit Iesus turbis tamquam ad latronem existis cum gladiis et fustibus conprehendere me cotidie apud vos sedebam docens in templo et non me tenuistis

NV omits ‘false witnesses’ (falsi testes) from ‘two false witnesses’, in accord with UBS, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT. Also, NV changes the verb to the participle (coming forward), in accord with the Greek.
{26:60} et non invenerunt, cum multi falsi testes accessissent. Novissime autem venerunt duo falsi testes,
{26:60} et non invenerunt, cum multi falsi testes accessissent. Novissime autem venientes duo
{26:60} et non invenerunt cum multi falsi testes accessissent novissime autem venerunt duo falsi testes

The text is harmed by omitting the second reference to ‘false witnesses’ because the phrasing of the verse does not imply that the two who came forward last were false witnesses. We might consider the second verse and arrive at the conclusion that they were testifying falsely (by distorting something Jesus said). But the text is better served, and the meaning is more readily apparent, if the second use of the term ‘false witnesses’ in this verse is retained. Why omit words from the Latin text if there is ample support for that text in all Latin sources and some Greek sources, and the text is best served by retaining it? Should the Latin scriptural tradition remain on earth, for use by the faithful, or should it be destroyed and pass away, so that only the critical Greek text, and no other, remains? Do scholars have the authority to delete words, phrases, and whole verses from the Canon on scholarly grounds? The answers that the NV apparently gives to these questions are disturbing.

NV omits ‘to them’ (ad ea) and rephrases the quote into two questions, rather than the one question in Latin.
{26:62} Et surgens princeps sacerdotum, ait illi: Nihil respondes ad ea, quæ isti adversum te testificantur?
{26:62} Et surgens princeps sacerdotum ait illi: ” Nihil respondes? Quid isti adversum te testificantur? “.
{26:62} et surgens princeps sacerdotum ait illi nihil respondes ad ea quae isti adversum te testificantur

It is not clear that the Greek calls for two questions, rather than one. Ancient manuscripts, whether in Greek, Latin, Hebrew, or Aramaic, have no punctuation, no difference between capital and small letters, and no spaces between the words. So manuscripts cannot tell us whether this is two questions, or one. But in comparing the Latin phrasing to the Greek, the Latin reads more smoothly and makes more sense. The Latin reads: “Have you no answer to what these [men] are testifying against you?” The Greek may be read as “Have you no answer? What are these [men] testifying against you?” (NAB translation) But since they all just heard what these men were testifying against Him, the second question does not fit the context very well. The Latin is the better reading, and yet the Latin NV rejects the better Latin phrasing, in favor of the Greek. So again we see that the Latin NV adopts the Greek text over the uncontested Latin, even to the detriment of the text.

NV omits ‘of God’ (Dei) from ‘sitting at the right hand of the power of God,’ in accord with the Greek.
{26:64} Dicit illi Iesus: Tu dixisti. verumtamen dico vobis, amodo videbitis filium hominis sedentem a dextris virtutis Dei, et venientem in nubibus cæli.
{26:64} Dicit illi Iesus: ” Tu dixisti. Verumtamen dico vobis: Amodo videbitis Filium hominis sedentem a dextris Virtutis et venientem in nubibus caeli “.
{26:64} dicit illi Iesus tu dixisti verumtamen dico vobis amodo videbitis Filium hominis sedentem a dextris virtutis et venientem in nubibus caeli

NV omits ‘ancilla’ (maidservant) in accord with the Greek and the FS, contrary to the CV.
{26:71} Exeunte autem illo ianuam, vidit eum alia ancilla, et ait his, qui erant ibi: Et hic erat cum Iesu Nazareno.
{26:71} Exeunte autem illo ad ianuam, vidit eum alia et ait his, qui erant ibi: ” Hic erat cum Iesu Nazareno! “.
{26:71} exeunte autem illo ianuam vidit eum alia et ait his qui erant ibi et hic erat cum Iesu Nazareno

This is yet another omission which treats the Pope Sixtus V and Pope Clement VIII Latin text as if it carries no weight whatsoever compared to the Greek, even though the NV is in Latin.

NV omits ‘Haceldama, hoc est’, in accord with the Greek. FS omits only ‘hoc est’.
{27:8} Propter hoc vocatus est ager ille, Haceldama, hoc est, ager sanguinis, usque in hodiernum diem.
{27:8} Propter hoc vocatus est ager ille ager Sanguinis usque in hodiernum diem.
{27:8} propter hoc vocatus est ager ille Acheldemach ager sanguinis usque in hodiernum diem

Haceldama is Aramaic, and so the Latin text provides a Latin translation of that word. But if Matthew wrote originally in Hebrew or Aramaic, no translation would have been necessary. So the phrase ‘that is, field of blood’ was perhaps added in the Latin text, at an early date. Omitting ‘that is’ is reasonable edit, since Matthew did not write in Latin and therefore did not need to explain the meaning of Haceldama. But if one assumes that Matthew wrote in Greek, then the words ‘field of blood’ would be needed, or at least very useful, in Matthew’s original text, to explain the word Haceldama. A Jew would likely know both Hebrew and Aramaic. But a native speaker of Greek would not usually know Hebrew. Yet the Greek text does not have the explanatory phrase ‘field of blood’. This omission supports the idea that Matthew did not write in Greek, but in Hebrew or Aramaic.

NV omits ‘procurator’ (praeses), in accord with the Greek.
{27:23} Dicunt omnes: Crucifigatur. Ait illis præses: Quid enim mali fecit? At illi magis clamabant dicentes: Crucifigatur.
{27:23} Ait autem: ” Quid enim mali fecit? “. At illi magis clamabant dicentes: ” Crucifigatur! “.
{27:23} dicunt omnes crucifigatur ait illis praeses quid enim mali fecit at illi magis clamabant dicentes crucifigatur

NV omits the word ‘justi’ (just man), referring to Christ, in accord with UBS, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT.
{27:24} Videns autem Pilatus quia nihil proficeret, sed magis tumultus fieret: accepta aqua, lavit manus coram populo, dicens: Innocens ego sum a sanguine iusti huius: vos videritis.
{27:24} Videns autem Pilatus quia nihil proficeret, sed magis tumultus fieret, accepta aqua, lavit manus coram turba dicens: ” Innocens ego sum a sanguine hoc; vos videritis! “.
{27:24} videns autem Pilatus quia nihil proficeret sed magis tumultus fieret accepta aqua lavit manus coram populo dicens innocens ego sum a sanguine iusti huius vos videritis

What is the justification for this omission? Is it so offensive to scholarly eyes to read that Pilate called Jesus ‘just’? The Latin reading is supported by the TR and MT, and the word fits the sentence and the context. Pilate states that he is not willing to condemn ‘this just man’. Whereas Pilate stating that he is not willing to condemn ‘this [one]’ makes far less sense. The TR and MT reflect the majority of Greek texts, and the Latin is uncontested, and the NV is in Latin, and the word that is omitted correctly refers to Jesus as being just. What is the reason that NV omits a word calling our Savior ‘just’? It is solely because the Protestant UBS Greek text omits the word.

The NV would be no worse in its text if the project had been done by the Protestant scholars at the UBS. In fact, the FS is the work of a group of mostly Protestant scholars at the German Bible Society, and even they have seen fit to retain the CV test of Matthew in the vast majority of cases. So a group of Protestant scholars has created a Latin Bible, the Stuttgart edition of the Vulgate, which retains the Latin scriptural tradition and which generally follows the CV reading. But a group of Catholic monks, at a Benedictine monastery — a monastery associated in past times with Saint Jerome—, who were given the task of updating the CV, have completely abandoned the Latin scriptural tradition, and have caused the NV to conform slavishly and unthinkingly solely to the Protestant UBS Greek text. If I did not know better, I would conclude that the monks of that monastery were Protestants, and that the editors of the FS were Catholics.

NV and FS omit the portion of the verse stating that this event of dividing his garments fulfills the prophecy of the Old Testament, in accord with UBS and MT, contrary to CV and TR.
{27:35} Postquam autem crucifixerunt eum, diviserunt vestimenta eius, sortem mittentes: ut impleretur quod dictum est per Prophetam dicentem: Diviserunt sibi vestimenta mea, et super vestem meam miserunt sortem.
{27:35} Postquam autem crucifixerunt eum, diviserunt vestimenta eius sortem mittentes
{27:35} postquam autem crucifixerunt eum diviserunt vestimenta eius sortem mittentes

The text is grievously harmed by this omission. This is not merely the deletion of a word or phrase, but of most of the verse, and the verse makes the important theological point that particular events during the Crucifixion fulfilled particular Old Testament prophecies.

NV adds ‘there’ (ibi), in accord with the Greek.
{27:36} Et sedentes servabant eum.
{27:36} et sedentes servabant eum ibi.
{27:36} et sedentes servabant eum

NV changes the order of the phrases ‘in two parts’ and ‘from top to bottom’, in accord with UBS, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT.
{27:51} Et ecce velum templi scissum est in duas partes a summo usque deorsum. et terra mota est, et petræ scissæ sunt,
{27:51} Et ecce velum templi scissum est a summo usque deorsum in duas partes, et terra mota est, et petrae scissae sunt;
{27:51} et ecce velum templi scissum est in duas partes a summo usque deorsum et terra mota est et petrae scissae sunt

Why was this edit made? There seems to be no reason other than to slavishly conform the NV to the UBS, regardless of all other sources, even to no purpose.

NV omits ‘quidam’ (a certain) from ‘a certain man’, in accord with the Greek.
{27:57} Cum autem sero factum esset, venit quidam homo dives ab Arimathæa, nomine Ioseph, qui et ipse discipulus erat Iesu.
{27:57} Cum sero autem factum esset, venit homo dives ab Arimathaea nomine Ioseph, qui et ipse discipulus erat Iesu.
{27:57} cum sero autem factum esset venit quidam homo dives ab Arimathia nomine Ioseph qui et ipse discipulus erat Iesu

NV omits the second use of ‘corpus’ (body), in accord with UBS, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT.
{27:58} hic accessit ad Pilatum, et petiit corpus Iesu. Tunc Pilatus iussit reddi corpus.
{27:58} Hic accessit ad Pilatum et petiit corpus Iesu. Tunc Pilatus iussit reddi.
{27:58} hic accessit ad Pilatum et petiit corpus Iesu tunc Pilatus iussit reddi corpus

The Latin verb ‘jussit’ is transitive; it calls for an object. Pilate ordered [something] to be given. The something is the body of Jesus. Omitting ‘corpus’ (body) in order to accord with the UBS text makes the Latin phrasing awkward at best. But this seems to be of no concern to the NV editors. They are only concerned with the Greek UBS text.

NV omits ‘the Lord’ from ‘where the Lord was placed’, in accord with UBS, contrary to CV, FS, TR, MT.
{28:6} non est hic: surrexit enim, sicut dixit. venite, et videte locum, ubi positus erat Dominus.
{28:6} Non est hic: surrexit enim, sicut dixit. Venite, videte locum, ubi positus erat.
{28:6} non est hic surrexit enim sicut dixit venite videte locum ubi positus erat Dominus

Final Comments

Is Sacred Scripture the entirely inspired and entirely inerrant Word of God? Or is Scripture an object to be studied, manipulated, dissected, and disemboweled by scholars? Who has authority over the Canon of Scripture? The Church or a group of Protestants scholars? Who should decide the content of the normative Latin text of the Bible used by the Universal Church on earth: the Council of Trent and the Magisterium, or current Protestant scholarship? The answer to these questions from the editors of the NV is all too clear.

The Greek critical text of the United Bible Societies has the indisputable advantage of making the entire Bible thinner, lighter, and less expensive to publish. But the Latin and the other Greek texts have the advantage of not deleting words from inspired and inerrant Divine Revelation. The reader will have to decide for himself which advantage is to be preferred.

While it is certainly true that we must never add words to Sacred Scripture, we are also morally obligated not to delete words from Sacred Scripture.

[Revelation]
{22:18} Contestor enim omni audienti verba prophetiæ libri huius: Si quis apposuerit ad hæc, apponet Deus super illum plagas scriptas in libro isto.
{22:18} For I call as witnesses all listeners of the words of the prophecy of this book. If anyone will have added to these, God will add upon him the afflictions written in this book.

{22:19} Et si quis diminuerit de verbis libri prophetiæ huius, auferet Deus partem eius de libro vitæ, et de civitate sancta, et de his, quæ scripta sunt in libro isto.
{22:19} And if anyone will have taken away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his portion from the Book of Life, and from the Holy City, and from these things which have been written in this book.

The Council of Trent infallibly defined the Canon of Scripture as not only the particular books of the Catholic Canon, but also all their parts as found in the Latin scriptural tradition. But recently control over the Canon has shifted away from the spiritual and temporal authority of the one holy Catholic Church to a group of scholars at the United Bible Societies, most of whom reject the Council of Trent as well as the Deuterocanonical books and passages. And these scholars readily drop hundreds (perhaps thousands) of words and phrases, as well as more than a few entire verses, from the Canon of Scripture on supposed scholarly grounds.

In speaking to my fellow Catholics, I can quote from the Congregation for Divine Worship:

“Determining which texts belong to the Church’s canon and which texts are prescribed for the Sacred Liturgy, however, lies outside the area of competence of biblical scholars in general, or of textual critics in particular. It is the Church herself, on the basis of her tradition, that has established the canon, and it is the competent ecclesiastical authority that prescribes the use of specific texts for liturgical use. As regards the rites of the Latin Church, that authority is the Holy See.” (Congregation for Divine Worship, Notitiae , volume 37, November 5, 2001.)

But such decisions of the Magisterium carry no weight with the mainly Protestant United Bible Societies, just as the teachings of Trent carry no weight. But what is much more disturbing is that Catholic Biblical scholars, translators, and commentators, and even many Catholic Bishops, are willing to treat the decisions of the UBS on which words, phrases, and verses are to be included in the Canon, as definitive and binding, while ignoring the teaching of the Council of Trent on the very same subject.

Size of the Gospel

The Gospel of Matthew, in the Clementine Vulgate edition, is 16,542 words. This count uses MS-Word’s word count feature, with no punctuation, verse numbering, chapter names or numbers; it is the number of words only. The number of letters (not counting spaces or line breaks or punctuation) is 86,978. But in the Nova Vulgata, the same approach yields only 16,339 words and only 85,835 letters. The Neo-Vulgate has 203 less words and 1,143 less letters. By comparison, the Stuttgart edition has 16,439 words, which is 103 less words, and 86,385 letters, which is 593 less letters.

The erosion of the Canon of Scripture is found in the Stuttgart edition, but it is much more pronounced in the Neo-Vulgate edition. We might reasonably expect that two different edits of any book of the Bible would have some differences in the number of words and number of letters. But to omit 100 to 200 words from a single book of Scripture cannot be said to have no effect on the content of the book. And there is no end in sight to this erosion of the Canon. Once scholars are given the power to excise words and verses from Sacred Scripture, they will not cease. There will always seem to be yet another reason for dropping yet another word, or phrase, or verse. But all this is in contradiction to the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent that the Canon consists not only of the 73 books, but of all their parts as found in the old Latin Vulgate. This new Latin Vulgate does not continue that scriptural tradition, but merely expresses the decisions of the Protestant UBS scholars in the Latin language. The loss to the faithful would be staggering, if only they would notice that a large portion of their Sacred Scriptures has been taken away from them.

NV typographical errors (edition on vatican.va website)
Mt 4:1, 5:1, 6:1, 6:23, 7:2, 9:1, 10:1 x2, 11:1, 13:43, 14:1, 15:9, 17:1, 18:1, 19:1, 20:1, 22:1, 23:39, 25:1, 26:1, 26:58, 27:1 x2, 27:9

This article copyright by Ronald L. Conte Jr. All Rights Reserved.

1. CV — 1914 Hetzenauer edition of the Clementine Vulgate, public domain
2. NV — current Nova Vulgata edition from the vatican.va website, copyrighted
3. FS — Stuttgart 1975 (second) edition by Fischer, copyrighted

Originaly posted by Sacred Bible

Deixe seu comentário aqui

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s