The Vulgate became progressively adopted as the Bible text within theWestern Church. Over succeeding centuries, it eventually eclipsed theVetus Latina texts.[1] By the 13th century it had taken over from the former version the designationversio vulgata (the "version commonly used"[2]) orvulgata for short.[3] The Vulgate also contains someVetus Latina translations that Jerome did not work on.[4]
TheCatholic Church affirmed the Vulgate as its officialLatin Bible at theCouncil of Trent (1545–1563), though there was no single authoritative edition of the book at that time in any language.[5] The Vulgate did eventually receive an official edition to bepromulgated among the Catholic Church as theSixtine Vulgate (1590), then as theClementine Vulgate (1592), and then as theNova Vulgata (1979). The Vulgate is still currently used in theLatin Church. The Clementine edition of the Vulgate became the standard Bible text of theRoman Rite of the Catholic Church, and remained so until 1979 when theNova Vulgata was promulgated.
The earliest known use of the termVulgata to describe Jerome's "new" Latin translation was made byRoger Bacon in the 13th century.[6]
The termVulgate was used in a 1538 edition Latin Bible byRobert Estienne which coupled the popular (i.e. the Vulgate) with the "most improved" (i.e., the recent new Latin translations ofPagninus,Beza and Baduell):Biblia utriusque testamenti juxta vulgatam translationem et eam, quam haberi potut, emendatissimam.[7]
While the majority of the Vulgate's translation is traditionally attributed toJerome, the Vulgate has a compound text that is not entirely Jerome's work.[8] Jerome's translation of the four Gospels are revisions ofVetus Latina translations he did while having the Greek as reference.[9][10]
The Vulgate is "a composite collection which cannot be identified with only Jerome's work," because the Vulgate containsVetus Latina texts which are independent from Jerome's work.[13]
A famous historical edition of the Vulgate, theAlcuinianpandects from the end of the 700s, contains:[13]
New Testament
Revision of Vetus Latina by Jerome: theGospels, corrected with reference to theGreek manuscripts which Jerome considered the best available.[16][13]
Translation from the Greek ofTheodotion by Jerome: the three additions to theBook of Daniel: theSong of the Three Children, theStory of Susanna, and theStory of Bel and the Dragon. Jerome marked these additions with anobelus before them to distinguish them from the rest of the text.[17] He says that because those parts "are spread throughout the whole world, [we] have appended by banishing and placing them after the spit (or "obelus"), so we will not be seen among the unlearned to have cut off a large part of the scroll."[18]
Translation from theCommon Septuagint by Jerome: theAdditions to Esther. Jerome gathered all these additions together at the end of the Book of Esther, marking them with an obelus.[19]
Jerome did not embark on the work with the intention of creating a new version of the whole Bible, but the changing nature of his program can be tracked in his voluminous correspondence.
He had been commissioned byDamasus I in 382 to revise theVetus Latina text of thefour Gospels from the best Greek texts.[23] By the time of Damasus' death in 384, Jerome had completed this task, together with a more cursory revision from the Greek Common Septuagint of theVetus Latina text of the Psalms in the Roman Psalter, a version which he later disowned and is now lost.[24] How much of the rest of the New Testament he then revised is difficult to judge,[25][26] but none of his work survived in the Vulgate text of these books.
The revised text of the New Testament outside the Gospels is deemed the work of other scholars.Rufinus of Aquileia has been suggested, as hasRufinus the Syrian (an associate ofPelagius) and Pelagius himself, though without specific evidence for any of them;[11][27] Pelagian groups have also been suggested as the revisers.[9] This unknown reviser worked more thoroughly than Jerome had done, consistently using older Greek manuscript sources ofAlexandrian text-type. They had published a complete revised New Testament text by 410 at the latest, when Pelagius quoted from it in his commentary on the letters ofPaul.[28][10]
In Jerome's Vulgate, the Hebrew Book ofEzra–Nehemiah is translated as the single book of "Ezra". Jerome defends this in his Prologue to Ezra, although he had noted formerly in his Prologue to the Book of Kings that some Greeks and Latins had proposed that this book should be split in two. Jerome argues that the two books of Ezra found in the Septuagint andVetus Latina,Esdras A and Esdras B, represented "variant examples" of a single Hebrew original. Hence, he does not translate Esdras A separately even though up until then it had been universally found in Greek and Vetus Latina Old Testaments, preceding Esdras B, the combined text of Ezra–Nehemiah.[29]
The Vulgate is usually credited as being the first translation of the Old Testament into Latin directly from the HebrewTanakh rather than from the Greek Septuagint. Jerome's extensive use ofexegetical material written in Greek, as well as his use of theAquiline and Theodotiontic columns of the Hexapla, along with the somewhatparaphrastic style[30] in which he translated, makes it difficult to determine exactly how direct the conversion of Hebrew to Latin was.[b][31][32]
Augustine of Hippo, a contemporary of Jerome, states in Book XVII ch. 43 of hisThe City of God that "in our own day the priest Jerome, a great scholar and master of all three tongues, has made a translation into Latin, not from Greek but directly from the original Hebrew."[33] Nevertheless, Augustine still maintained that the Septuagint, alongside the Hebrew, witnessed the inspired text of Scripture. He reminded Jerome of the need for the Latin church to be in sync with the Greek church, and practical difficulty in finding any Hebrew-reading Christian scholar who could check Jerome's translation from the Hebrew.[34] He consequently pressed Jerome for complete copies of his Hexaplar Latin translation of the Old Testament, a request that Jerome ducked with the excuses that scribes were in short supply and that the originals had been lost "through someone's dishonesty".[35]
He used a novel layout techniqueper cola et commata which put each major clause on new line.[36]
Prologues written by Jerome to some of his translations of parts of the Bible are to thePentateuch,[37] toJoshua,[38] and toKings (1–2 Kings and 1–2 Samuel) which is also called theGaleatum principium.[39] Following these are prologues to Chronicles,[40] Ezra,[41] Tobit,[42] Judith,[43] Esther,[44] Job,[45] theGallican Psalms,[46] Song of Songs,[47] Isaiah,[48] Jeremiah,[49] Ezekiel,[50] Daniel,[18] the minor prophets,[51] the gospels.[52] The final prologue is to thePauline epistles and is better known asPrimum quaeritur; this prologue is considered not to have been written by Jerome.[53][11] Related to these are Jerome'sNotes on the Rest of Esther[54] and hisPrologue to theHebrew Psalms.[55]
A theme of theOld Testament prologues is Jerome's preference for theHebraica veritas (i.e., Hebrew truth) over the Septuagint, a preference which he defended from his detractors. After Jerome had translated some parts of the Septuagint into Latin, he came to consider the text of the Septuagint as being faulty in itself, i.e. Jerome thought mistakes in the Septuagint text were not all mistakes made bycopyists, but that some mistakes were part of the original text itself as it was produced by theSeventy translators. Jerome believed that the Hebrew text more clearly prefiguredChrist than the Greek of the Septuagint, since he believed some quotes of the Old Testament in the New Testament were not present in the Septuagint, but existed in the Hebrew version; Jerome gave some of those quotes in his prologue to the Pentateuch.[56] In theGaleatum principium (a.k.a.Prologus Galeatus), Jerome described an Old Testament canon of 22 books, which he found represented in the 22-letterHebrew alphabet. Alternatively, he numbered the books as 24, which he identifies with the 24 elders in the Book of Revelation casting their crowns before theLamb.[39] In the prologue to Ezra, he sets the "twenty-four elders" of the Hebrew Bible against the "Seventy interpreters" of the Septuagint.[41]
In addition, many medieval Vulgate manuscripts includedJerome's epistle number 53, to Paulinus bishop of Nola, as a general prologue to the whole Bible. Notably, this letter was printed at the head of theGutenberg Bible. Jerome's letter promotes the study of each of the books of the Old and New Testaments listed by name (and excluding any mention of thedeuterocanonical books); and its dissemination had the effect of propagating the belief that the whole Vulgate text was Jerome's work.
The prologue to the Pauline Epistles in the Vulgate defends the Pauline authorship of theEpistle to the Hebrews, directly contrary to Jerome's own views—a key argument in demonstrating that Jerome did not write it. The author of thePrimum quaeritur is unknown, but it is first quoted by Pelagius in his commentary on the Pauline letters written before 410. As this work also quotes from the Vulgate revision of these letters, it has been proposed that Pelagius or one of his associates may have been responsible for the revision of the Vulgate New Testament outside the Gospels. At any rate, it is reasonable to identify the author of the preface with the unknown reviser of the New Testament outside the gospels.[11]
Some manuscripts of the Pauline epistles contain shortMarcionite prologues to each of the epistles indicating where they were written, with notes about where the recipients dwelt.Adolf von Harnack, citing De Bruyne, argued that these notes were written byMarcion of Sinope or one of his followers.[57] Many early Vulgate manuscripts contain a set ofPriscillianist prologues to the gospels.
The Latin biblical texts in use before Jerome's Vulgate are usually referred to collectively as theVetus Latina, or "Vetus Latina Bible". "Vetus Latina" means that they are older than the Vulgate and written inLatin, not that they are written inOld Latin. Jerome, in his preface to the Vulgate gospels, commented that there were "as many [translations] as there are manuscripts"; subsequently noting the same in his preface to the Book of Joshua.
The translations in theVetus Latina had accumulated piecemeal over a century or more. They were not translated by a single person or institution, nor uniformly edited. The individual books varied in quality of translation and style, and different manuscripts and quotations witness wide variations in readings. Some books appear to have been translated several times.
The Vulgate did not immediately supersede theVetus Latina translations. Pandects from the Early Middle Ages sometimes had some books (e.g. deuterocanonicals, Acts, Revelation), or took phrases, or had glosses from theVetus Latina, but this declined through the High Middle Ages.[58]
Jerome's work on the Gospels was a revision of theVetus Latina versions, and not an entirely new translation. The base text for Jerome's revision of the gospels was a Vetus Latina text similar to theCodex Veronensis, with the text of the Gospel of John conforming more to that in theCodex Corbiensis.[59]
TheVetus Latina gospels had been translated from Greek originals of theWestern text-type. Comparison of Jerome's Gospel texts with those in Vetus Latina witnesses, suggests that his revision was concerned with substantially redacting their expanded "Western" phraseology in accordance with the Greek texts of better earlyByzantine andAlexandrian witnesses. For the Gospels "High priest" is renderedprinceps sacerdotum in Vulgate Matthew; assummus sacerdos in Vulgate Mark; and aspontifex in Vulgate John.
In places Jerome adopted readings that did not correspond to a straightforward rendering either of the Vetus Latina or the Greek text, so reflecting a particular doctrinal interpretation; as in his rewordingpanem nostrumsupersubstantialem atMatthew 6:11.[60]
One major change Jerome introduced was to re-order the Latin Gospels. Most Vetus Latina gospel books followed the "Western" order of Matthew, John, Luke, Mark; Jerome adopted the "Greek" order of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. His revisions became progressively less frequent and less consistent in the gospels presumably done later.[61]
The unknown reviser of the rest of the New Testament shows marked differences from Jerome, both in editorial practice and in their sources. Where Jerome sought to correct the Vetus Latina text with reference to the best recent Greek manuscripts, with a preference for those conforming to the Byzantine text-type, the Greek text underlying the revision of the rest of the New Testament demonstrates the Alexandrian text-type found in the greatuncialcodices of the mid-4th century, most similar to theCodex Sinaiticus. The reviser's changes generally conform very closely to this Greek text, even in matters of word order—to the extent that the resulting text may be only barely intelligible as Latin.[10]
Jerome himself uses the term "Latin Vulgate" for theVetus Latina text, so intending to denote this version as the common Latin rendering of theGreek Vulgate or Common Septuagint (which Jerome otherwise terms the "Seventy interpreters"). This remained the usual use of the term "Latin Vulgate" in the West for centuries. On occasion Jerome applies the term "Septuagint" (Septuaginta) to refer to the Hexaplar Septuagint, where he wishes to distinguish this from theVulgata or Common Septuagint.
According to Old Testament scholarAmanda Benckhuysen: "Jerome omits from the Vulgate the phrase “who was with her” in Genesis 3:6, making Eve doubly culpable for the fall and responsible for Adam’s sin. By implying Adam’s absence during the serpent’s conversation with Eve, the Vulgate portrays Eve as the seduced who becomes the seducer, beguiling a naive Adam to eat the forbidden fruit."[62]
The Book ofPsalms, in particular, had circulated for over a century in an earlier Latin version (the Cyprianic Version), before it was superseded by the Vetus Latina version in the 4th century.
After the Gospels, the most widely used and copied part of the Christian Bible is the Book of Psalms. Consequently, Damasus also commissioned Jerome to revise the psalter in use in Rome, to agree better with the Greek of the Common Septuagint. Jerome said he had done this cursorily when in Rome, but he later disowned this version, maintaining that copyists had reintroduced erroneous readings. Until the 20th century, it was commonly assumed that the surviving Roman Psalter represented Jerome's first attempted revision, but more recent scholarship—following de Bruyne—rejects this identification. The Roman Psalter is indeed one of at least five revised versions of the mid-4th century Vetus Latina Psalter, but compared to the other four, the revisions in the Roman Psalter are in clumsy Latin, and fail to follow Jerome's known translational principles, especially in respect of correcting harmonised readings. Nevertheless, it is clear from Jerome's correspondence (especially in his defence of the Gallican Psalter in the long and detailed Epistle 106)[63] that he was familiar with the Roman Psalter text, and consequently it is assumed that this revision represents the Roman text as Jerome had found it.[64]
In the 9th century theVetus Latina texts of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah were introduced into the Vulgate in versions revised byTheodulf of Orleans and are found in a minority of early medieval Vulgatepandect bibles from that date onward.[14] After 1300, when the booksellers of Paris began to produce commercial single volume Vulgate bibles in large numbers, these commonly included both Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah as theBook of Baruch. Also beginning in the 9th century, Vulgate manuscripts are found that split Jerome's combined translation from the Hebrew ofEzra and theNehemiah into separate books called 1 Ezra and 2 Ezra. Bogaert argues that this practice arose from an intention to conform the Vulgate text to the authoritative canon lists of the 5th/6th century, where 'two books of Ezra' were commonly cited.[66] Subsequently, many late medieval Vulgate bible manuscripts introduced a Latin version, originating from before Jerome and distinct from that in theVetus Latina, of the Greek Esdras A, now commonly termed3 Ezra; and also a Latin version of an Ezra Apocalypse, commonly termed4 Ezra.
Council of Trent and position of the Catholic Church
In the early 1500s numerous new Catholic and Protestant biblical translations or revisions in Latin appeared, and theological disputes had arisen over the canonical status of books which e.g. supported doctrines thatLuther disagreed with. TheCouncil of Trent (1545–1563) both finalized thebiblical canon,[67] and re-endorsed the Vulgate among Latin versions for public reading: it was to "be held as authentic".[68] (In liturgical use, this was not the case: theRoman Missal uses Psalms and Pater Noster taken from thevetus latina Latin versions.)
The Council of Trent cited long usage in support of the Vulgate'smagisterial authority:
Moreover, this sacred and holy Synod,—considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,—ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.[68]
The qualifier "Latin editions, now in circulation" and the use of "authentic" (not "inerrant") show the limits of this statement.[69]
When the council listed the books included in the canon, it qualified the books as being "entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in theCatholic Church, and as they are contained in the Vetus Latina vulgate edition". The fourth session of the Council specified 72 canonical books in the Bible: 45 in the Old Testament, 27 in the New Testament with Lamentations not being counted as separate from Jeremiah.[70] On 2 June 1927,Pope Pius XI clarified this decree, allowing that theComma Johanneum was open to dispute.[71]
Later, in the 20th century, Pope Pius XII declared the Vulgate as "free from error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals" in hisencyclicalDivino Afflante Spiritu:
Hence this special authority or as they say, authenticity of the Vulgate was not affirmed by the Council particularly for critical reasons, but rather because of its legitimate use in the Churches throughout so many centuries; by which use indeed the same is shown, in the sense in which the Church has understood and understands it, to be free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals; so that, as the Church herself testifies and affirms, it may be quoted safely and without fear of error in disputations, in lectures and in preaching [...]"[72]
— Pope Pius XII
Theinerrancy is with respect to faith and morals, as it says in the above quote: "free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals", and the inerrancy is not in aphilological sense:
[...] and so its authenticity is not specified primarily as critical, but rather as juridical.[72]
As with thevetus latina and the Greektext types, manuscript versions of the Vulgate texts exhibit a considerable number of minor variations by scribes.Regular attempts were made over the centuries to conserve Jerome's text or to purify the text of obvious errors or substitutions fromvetus latina phrases: attempts such as byCassiodorus in the 6th century,Alcuin in the 8th,Stephen Harding in the 12th,Erasmus in the 16th, to the modern Stuttgart Vulgate.[73]
Scholars have identified families of variants, allowing tracing of influence or provenance of texts: for example, the Latin text of theRushworth gospels belongs to the Insular or Irish family with characteristic inversions of word order.[74]: xlv
For over a thousand years (c. AD 400–1530), the Vulgate was the most commonly used edition of the most influential text in Western European society. Indeed, for mostWestern Christians, especiallyCatholics, it was the only version of the Bible as a publication ever encountered, only truly being eclipsed in the mid-20th century.[75]
In about 1455,the first Vulgate published by themoveable type process was produced inMainz by a partnership betweenJohannes Gutenberg and bankerJohn Fust (or Faust).[76][77][78] At the time, a manuscript of the Vulgate was selling for approximately 500 guilders. Gutenberg's works appear to have been a commercial failure, and Fust sued for recovery of his 2026 guilder investment and was awarded complete possession of the Gutenberg plant. Arguably, theReformation could not have been possible without the diaspora of biblical knowledge that was permitted by the development of moveable type.[77]
The fifth volume ofWalton's London Polyglot of 1657 included several versions of the New Testament: in Greek, Latin (a Vulgate version and the version byArius Montanus), Syriac, Ethiopic, and Arabic. It also included a version of the Gospels in Persian.[79]
The Vulgate Latin is used regularly inThomas Hobbes'Leviathan of 1651; in theLeviathan Hobbes "has a worrying tendency to treat the Vulgate as if it were the original".[80]
The Vulgate had significant cultural influence on literature for centuries, and thus the development of the English language, especially in matters of religion.[75] Many Latin words were taken from the Vulgate into English nearly unchanged in meaning or spelling:creatio (e.g.Genesis 1:1, Heb 9:11),salvatio (e.g. Is 37:32, Eph 2:5),justificatio (e.g. Rom 4:25, Heb 9:1),testamentum (e.g. Mt 26:28),sanctificatio (1 Ptr 1:2, 1 Cor 1:30),regeneratio (Mt 19:28), andraptura (from a noun form of the verbrapere in 1 Thes 4:17). The word "publican" comes from the Latinpublicanus (e.g., Mt 10:3), and the phrase "far be it" is a translation of the Latin expressionabsit. (e.g., Mt 16:22 in theKing James Bible).[83] Other examples includeapostolus,ecclesia,evangelium,Pascha, andangelus.
In translating the 38 books of the Hebrew Bible (Ezra–Nehemiah being counted as one book), Jerome was relatively free in rendering their text into Latin. PaleographerFrederic Kenyon notes that "the translation is of unequal merit; some parts are free to the verge of paraphrase, others are so literal as to be unintelligible."[84]
Jerome's translation has been regarded by scholars as very useful for reconstructing the state of the Hebrew text as it existed at his time, that being quite close to theMasoretic consonantal Hebrew text version compiled nearly 600 years after Jerome.[84]
The Vulgate exists in many forms. TheCodex Amiatinus is the oldest surviving complete manuscript from the 8th century. TheGutenberg Bible is a notable printed edition of the Vulgate by Johann Gutenberg in 1455. TheSixtine Vulgate (1590) is the first official Bible of the Catholic Church. TheClementine Vulgate (1592) is a standardized edition of the medieval Vulgate, and the second official Bible of the Catholic Church. TheStuttgart Vulgate is a 1969 critical edition of the Vulgate. TheNova Vulgata is the third and latest official Bible of the Catholic Church; it was published in 1979, and is a translation from modern critical editions of original language texts of the Bible.
Alcuin of York oversaw efforts to make a Latin Bible, an exemplar of which was presented toCharlemagne in 801. Alcuin's edition contained the Vulgate version. It appears Alcuin concentrated only on correcting errors of grammar,orthography and punctuation. "Even though Alcuin's revision of the Latin Bible was neither the first nor the last of the Carolingian period, it managed to prevail over the other versions and to become the most influential edition for centuries to come." The success of this Bible has been attributed to the fact that this Bible may have been "prescribed as the official version at the emperor's request." However,Bonifatius Fischer believes its success was rather due to the productivity of the scribes ofTours where Alcuin was abbot, at themonastery of Saint Martin; Fischer believes the emperor only favored the editorial work of Alcuin by encouraging work on the Bible in general.[86]
"Although, in contrast to Alcuin, Theodulf [of Orleans] clearly developed an editorial programme, his work on the Bible was far less influential than that of hs slightly older contemporary. Nevertheless, several manuscripts containing his version have come down to us." Theodulf added to his edition of the Bible the Book of Baruch, which Alcuin's edition did not contain; it is this version of the Book of Baruch which later became part of the Vulgate. In his editorial activity, on at least one manuscript of the Theodulf Bible (S Paris, BNF lat. 9398), Theodulf marked variant readings along with their sources in the margin of the manuscripts. Those marginal notes of variant readings along with their sources "seem to foreshadow the thirteenth-centurycorrectoria."[87] In the 9th century theVetus Latina texts of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah were introduced into the Vulgate in versions revised by Theodulf of Orleans and are found in a minority of early medieval Vulgatepandect bibles from that date onward.[14]
By the 9th century, due to the success of Alcuin's edition, the Vulgate had replaced theVetus Latina as the most available edition of the Latin Bible.[89]
Though the advent of printing greatly reduced the potential of human error and increased the consistency and uniformity of the text, the earliest editions of the Vulgate merely reproduced the manuscripts that were readily available to publishers. Of the hundreds of early editions, the most notable today is the Mazarin edition published byJohann Gutenberg andJohann Fust in 1455, famous for its beauty and antiquity. In 1504, the first Vulgate with variant readings was published in Paris. One of the texts of theComplutensian Polyglot was an edition of the Vulgate made from ancient manuscripts and corrected to agree with the Greek.
In 1550, Stephanus fled toGeneva, where he issued his final critical edition of the Vulgate in 1555. This was the first complete Bible with fullchapter and verse divisions and became the standard biblical reference text for late-16th centuryReformed theology.
Frontispiece of the original Sixtine VulgateFrontispiece of the original 1592 Sixto-Clementine Vulgate
After theReformation, when the Catholic Churchstrove to counter Protestantism and refute its doctrines, the Vulgate was declared at the Council of Trent to "be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever."[68] Furthermore, the council expressed the wish that the Vulgate be printedquam emendatissime[c] ("with fewest possible faults").[5][91]
In 1590, theSixtine Vulgate was issued, under Sixtus V, as being the official Bible recommended by the Council of Trent.[92][93] On 27 August 1590, Sixtus V died. After his death, "many claimed that the text of the Sixtine Vulgate was too error-ridden for general use."[94] On 5 September of the same year, theCollege of Cardinals stopped all further sales of the Sixtine Vulgate and bought and destroyed as many copies as possible by burning them. The reason invoked for this action was printing inaccuracies in Sixtus V's edition of the Vulgate. However,Bruce Metzger, an American biblical scholar, believes that the printing inaccuracies may have been a pretext and that the attack against this edition had been instigated by theJesuits, "whom Sixtus had offended byputting one of Bellarmine's books on the 'Index' ".[95]
In the same year he became pope (1592), Clement VIII recalled all copies of the Sixtine Vulgate.[96][97] The reason invoked for recalling Sixtus V's edition was printing errors, however the Sixtine Vulgate was mostly free of them.[97][93]
The Sistine edition was replaced byClement VIII (1592–1605). This new edition was published in 1592 and is called today theClementine Vulgate[98][99] or Sixto-Clementine Vulgate.[99] "The misprints of this edition were partly eliminated in a second (1593) and a third (1598) edition."[98]
The Clementine Vulgate is the edition most familiar to Catholics who have lived prior to theliturgical reforms followingVatican II. Roger Gryson, in the preface to the 4th edition of theStuttgart Vulgate (1994), asserts that the Clementine edition "frequently deviates from the manuscript tradition for literary or doctrinal reasons, and offers only a faint reflection of the original Vulgate, as read in thepandecta of the first millennium."[100] However, historical scholar CardinalFrancis Aidan Gasquet, in theCatholic Encyclopedia, states that the Clementine Vulgate substantially represents the Vulgate which Jerome produced in the 4th century, although "it stands in need of close examination and much correction to make it [completely] agree with the translation of St. Jerome".[101]
Most other later editions were limited to the New Testament and did not present a full critical apparatus, most notablyKarl Lachmann's editions of 1842 and 1850 based primarily on the Codex Amiatinus and the Codex Fuldensis,[102] Fleck's edition[103] of 1840, andConstantin von Tischendorf's edition of 1864. In 1906Eberhard Nestle publishedNovum Testamentum Latine,[104] which presented the Clementine Vulgate text with a critical apparatus comparing it to the editions of Sixtus V (1590), Lachman (1842), Tischendorf (1854), and Wordsworth and White (1889), as well as the Codex Amiatinus and the Codex Fuldensis.
As a result of the inaccuracy of existing editions of the Vulgate, in 1878, the delegates of theOxford University Press accepted a proposal from classicistJohn Wordsworth to produce a critical edition of the New Testament.[106][107] This was eventually published asNouum Testamentum Domini nostri Iesu Christi Latine, secundum editionem sancti Hieronymi in three volumes between 1889 and 1954.[108]
The edition, commonly known as theOxford Vulgate, relies primarily on the texts of the Codex Amiatinus, Codex Fuldensis (Codex Harleianus in the Gospels),Codex Sangermanensis, Codex Mediolanensis (in the Gospels), and Codex Reginensis (in Paul).[109][110] It also consistently cites readings in the so-called DELQR group of manuscripts, named after thesigla it uses for them:Book of Armagh (D),Egerton Gospels (E),Lichfield Gospels (L),Book of Kells (Q), and Rushworth Gospels (R).[111]
In 1907, PopePius X commissioned theBenedictine monks to prepare a critical edition of Jerome's Vulgate, entitledBiblia Sacra iuxta latinam vulgatam versionem.[112] This text was originally planned as the basis for a revised complete official Bible for the Catholic Church to replace the Clementine edition.[113] The first volume, the Pentateuch, was completed in 1926.[114][115] For the Pentateuch, the primary sources for the text are theCodex Amiatinus, the Codex Turonensis (theAshburnham Pentateuch), and the Ottobonianus Octateuch.[116] For the rest of the Old Testament (except theBook of Psalms) the primary sources for the text are theCodex Amiatinus andCodex Cavensis.[117]
Following the Codex Amiatinus and the Vulgate texts of Alcuin and Theodulf, the Benedictine Vulgate reunited the Book of Ezra and the Book of Nehemiah into a single book, reversing the decisions of the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate.
In 1933, Pope Pius XI established thePontifical Abbey of St Jerome-in-the-City to complete the work. By the 1970s, as a result of liturgical changes that had spurred the Vatican to produce a new translation of the Latin Bible, theNova Vulgata, theBenedictine edition was no longer required for official purposes,[118] and the abbey was suppressed in 1984.[119] Five monks were nonetheless allowed to complete the final two volumes of the Old Testament, which were published under the abbey's name in 1987 and 1995.[120]
Concordance to the Vulgate Bible for the Stuttgart Vulgate
Based on the editions of Oxford and Rome, but with an independent examination of the manuscript evidence and extending their lists of primary witnesses for some books, the Württembergische Bibelanstalt, later theDeutsche Bibelgesellschaft (German Bible Society), based in Stuttgart, first published a critical edition of the complete Vulgate in 1969. The work has continued to be updated, with a fifth edition appearing in 2007.[121] The project was originally directed by Robert Weber, OSB (a monk of the same Benedictine abbey responsible for the Benedictine edition), with collaboratorsBonifatius Fischer,Jean Gribomont, Hedley Frederick Davis Sparks (also responsible for the completion of the Oxford edition), and Walter Thiele. Roger Gryson has been responsible for the most recent editions. It is thus marketed by its publisher as the "Weber-Gryson" edition, but is also frequently referred to as the Stuttgart edition.[122]
The Weber-Gryson includes of Jerome's prologues and theEusebian Canons.
It contains two Psalters, theGallicanum and thejuxta Hebraicum, which are printed on facing pages to allow easy comparison and contrast between the two versions. It has an expandedApocrypha, containing Psalm 151 and the Epistle to the Laodiceans in addition to 3 and 4 Ezra and thePrayer of Manasses. In addition, its modern prefaces in Latin, German, French, and English are a source of valuable information about the history of the Vulgate.
TheNova Vulgata (Nova Vulgata Bibliorum Sacrorum Editio), also called the Neo-Vulgate, is the official Latin edition of the Bible published by theHoly See for use in the contemporaryRoman rite. It is not a critical edition of the historical Vulgate, but a revision of the text intended to accord with modern critical Hebrew and Greek texts and produce a style closer to Classical Latin.[123]
In 1979, theNova Vulgata was promulgated as "typical" (standard) byJohn Paul II.[124]
The title "Vulgate" is currently applied to three distinct online texts which can be found from various sources on the Internet. The text being used can be ascertained from the spelling ofEve's name in Genesis 3:20:[125][126]
^Also calledBiblia Vulgata ('Bible in common language';Classical Latin:[ˈbɪ.bli.awʊɫˈɡaː.ta],Ecclesiastical Latin:[ˈbiː.bli.avulˈɡaː.t̪a]), sometimes referred to as theLatin Vulgate
^Some, following P. Nautin (1986) and perhaps E. Burstein (1971), suggest that Jerome may have been almost wholly dependent on Greek material for his interpretation of the Hebrew. A. Kamesar (1993), on the other hand, sees evidence that in some cases Jerome's knowledge of Hebrew exceeds that of his exegetes, implying a direct understanding of the Hebrew text.
^abcHoughton, H. A. G. (2016).The Latin New Testament; a Guide to its Early History, Texts and Manuscripts. Oxford University Press. p. 41.
^abcdeScherbenske, Eric W. (2013).Canonizing Paul: Ancient Editorial Practice and the Corpus Paulinum. Oxford University Press. p. 183.
^abHoughton, H. A. G. (2016).The Latin New Testament; a Guide to its Early History, Texts and Manuscripts. Oxford University Press. pp. 36, 41.
^abcdefghijCanellis (2017), ch. "Introduction: Revision...", p. 217.
^abcdeBogaert, Pierre-Maurice (2005). "Le livre de Baruch dans les manuscrits de la Bible latine. Disparition et réintégration".Revue Bénédictine.115 (2):286–342.doi:10.1484/J.RB.5.100598.
^abCanellis (2017), ch. "Introduction: From Jerome's...", pp. 213, 217.
^Browning, W. R. F. (8 October 2009).A Dictionary of the Bible (2nd ed.).Oxford University Press. p. 373.ISBN978-0-19-158506-7. Archived from the original on 3 May 2025. Retrieved13 January 2025.The translation of the Bible from the original languages into Latin by Jerome (from 383 to 405 CE) undertaken at the request of Pope Damasus to bring order into the various existing versions.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
^Goins, Scott (2014). "Jerome's Psalters". In Brown, William P. (ed.).Oxford Handbook to the Psalms.Oxford University Press. p. 188.
^Scherbenske, Eric W. (2013).Canonizing Paul: Ancient Editorial Practice and the Corpus Paulinum. Oxford University Press. p. 182.
^Houghton, H. A. G. (2016).The Latin New Testament; a Guide to its Early History, Texts and Manuscripts. Oxford University Press. p. 31.
^Houghton, H. A. G. (2016).The Latin New Testament; a Guide to its Early History, Texts and Manuscripts. Oxford University Press. p. 36.
^Scherbenske, Eric W. (2013).Canonizing Paul: Ancient Editorial Practice and the Corpus Paulinum. Oxford University Press. p. 184.
^Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice (2000). "Les livres d'Esdras et leur numérotation dans l'histoire du canon de la Bible latin".Revue Bénédictine.1o5 (1–2):5–26.doi:10.1484/J.RB.5.100750.
^Worth, Roland H. Jr.Bible Translations: A History Through Source Documents. pp. 29–30.
^Pierre Nautin, article "Hieronymus", in:Theologische Realenzyklopädie, Vol. 15,Walter de Gruyter, Berlin – New York 1986, pp. 304–315, [309–310].
^Adam Kamesar.Jerome, Greek Scholarship, and the Hebrew Bible: A Study of the Quaestiones Hebraicae in Genesim. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1993.ISBN978-0198147275. p. 97. This work cites E. Burstein,La compétence en hébreu de saint Jérôme (Diss.), Poitiers 1971.
^City of God edited and abridged by Vernon J. Bourke 1958
^Canellis (2017), ch. "Introduction: Revision...", pp. 99–109.
^Origin of the New Testament - APPENDIX I (to § 2 of Part I, pp. 59 f.) The Marcionite Prologues to the Pauline Epistles, Adolf von Harnack, 1914. Moreover, Harnack noted: "We have indeed long known thatMarcionite readings found their way into the ecclesiastical text of the Pauline epistles, but now for seven years we have known that Churches actually accepted the Marcionite prefaces to the Pauline epistles! De Bruyne has made one of the finest discoveries of later days in proving that those prefaces, which we read first inCodex Fuldensis and then in numbers of later manuscripts, are Marcionite, and that the Churches had not noticed the cloven hoof."
^Buron, Philip (2014).The text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research; 2nd edn.Brill Publishers. p. 182.
^Houghton, H. A. G. (2016).The Latin New Testament; a Guide to its Early History, Texts and Manuscripts. Oxford University Press. p. 33.
^Houghton, H. A. G. (2016).The Latin New Testament; a Guide to its Early History, Texts and Manuscripts.Oxford University Press. pp. 32, 34, 195.
^Benckhuysen, Amanda W. (29 October 2019).The Gospel According to Eve: A History of Women's Interpretation. IVP Academic. p. 17.ISBN9780830852277.
^Goins, Scott (2014). "Jerome's Psalters". In Brown, William. P. (ed.).Oxford Handbook of the Psalms. OUP. p. 190.
^Norris, Oliver (2017). "Tracing Fortunatianus's Psalter". In Dorfbauer, Lukas J. (ed.).Fortunatianus ridivivus.CSEL. p. 285.
^Biblia Sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem. Robert Weber, Roger Gryson (eds.) (5 ed.). Stuttgart:Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. 2007. p. XXXIII.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
^Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice (2000). "Les livres d'Esdras et leur numérotation dans l'histoire du canon de la Bible latin".Revue Bénédictine.110 (1–2):5–26.doi:10.1484/J.RB.5.100750.
^Sutcliffe, Edmund F. (1948). "The Council of Trent on theauthentia of the Vulgate".The Journal of Theological Studies. o.s.49 (193–194):35–42.doi:10.1093/jts/os-XLIX.193-194.35.ISSN0022-5185.
^"Denzinger – English translation, older numbering".patristica.net. Retrieved11 March 2020.2198 [...] "This decree [of January 13, 1897] was passed to check the audacity of private teachers who attributed to themselves the right either of rejecting entirely the authenticity of the Johannine comma, or at least of calling it into question by their own final judgment. But it was not meant at all to prevent Catholic writers from investigating the subject more fully and, after weighing the arguments accurately on both sides, with that and temperance which the gravity of the subject requires, from inclining toward an opinion in opposition to its authenticity, provided they professed that they were ready to abide by the judgment of the Church, to which the duty was delegated by Jesus Christ not only of interpreting Holy Scripture but also of guarding it faithfully."
^abHastings, James (2004) [1898]."Vulgate".A Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 4, part 2 (Shimrath – Zuzim). Honolulu, Hawaii: University Press of the Pacific. p. 881.ISBN978-1410217295.
^abMetzger, Bruce M. (1977).The Early Versions of the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 349.
^Nouum Testamentum Domini nostri Iesu Christi Latine, secundum editionem sancti Hieronymi. John Wordsworth, Henry Julian White (eds.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1889–1954.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link) 3 vols.
^Biblia Sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem. Robert Weber, Roger Gryson (eds.) (5 ed.). Stuttgart:Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. 2007. p. XLVI.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
^Houghton, H. A. G. (2016).The Latin New Testament; a Guide to its Early History, Texts and Manuscripts. Oxford University Press. p. 130.
^Kraft, Robert A. (1965). "Review of Biblia Sacra iuxta Latinam vulgatam versionem ad codicum fidem iussu Pauli Pp. VI. cura et studio monachorum abbatiae pontificiae Sancti Hieronymi in Urbe ordinis Sancti Benedicti edita. 12: Sapientia Salomonis. Liber Hiesu Filii Sirach".Gnomon.37 (8):777–781.ISSN0017-1417.JSTOR27683795.Préaux, Jean G. (1954). "Review of Biblia Sacra iuxta latinum vulgatam versionem. Liber psalmorum ex recensione sancti Hieronymi cum praefationibus et epistula ad Sunniam et Fretelam".Latomus.13 (1):70–71.JSTOR41520237.
Canellis, Aline, ed. (2017).Jérôme : Préfaces aux livres de la Bible [Jerome : Preface to the books of the Bible] (in French). Abbeville:Éditions du Cerf.ISBN978-2-204-12618-2.
Chapter "Introduction : Révision et retourn à l'Hebraica veritas" ('Introduction: Revision and return toHebraica veritas ')
Chapter "Introduction : Du travail de Jérôme à la Vulgate ('Introduction: From Jerome's work to the Vulgate')
Draguet, R. (1946). "Le Maître louvainiste, [Jean] Driedo, inspirateur du décret de Trente sur la Vulgate".Festschrift volume,Miscellenea historica in honorem Alberti de Meyer. Louvain: Bibliothèque universitaire. pp. 836–854.
Gameson, Richard, ed. (1994).The Early Medieval Bible. Cambridge University Press.
Houghton, H. A. G., ed. (2023).The Oxford Handbook of the Latin Bible. Oxford University Press.
Lampe, G. W. M., ed. (1969).The Cambridge History of the Bible. Vol. 2. Cambridge University Press.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
