The Vulgata in Church Tradition1

Vasile Babota
Αν. Καθηγητή του Ποντιφικού Γρηγοριανού Πανεπιστημίου, Ρώμη

THE SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY IN THE EARLY CENTURIES generated the need for
biblical texts in a language Christians could (better) understand. The three source
languages in which these texts were composed and/or translated before the emergence
of Christianity (i.e. Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek) could no longer fully satisfy this need2.
Thus certain Christian communities decided to have the sacred texts translated into
their own daily spoken language. The first two translations by Christians were done in
Latin and Syriac3. These translations were an innovation in the transmission history
of the sacred texts. In what follows, I shall deal with the Latin translation(s). The focus
of this contribution is the so-called Vulgata Bible(s). I shall outline some of the most
salient aspects of its history only.

1. I thank the organizers of the Hellenic Bible Society for inviting me to deliver this paper at
their conference held in Athens on December 12-13, 2014. Also, I thank Prof. Chris Seeman for
kindly agreeing to correct my English. Any remaining errors, however, are my sole responsibility.
2. The translation into Greek of some Hebrew Bible books was not finished until probably late
1st or early 2nd century C.E. This might be the case with the Book of Qohelet/Ecclesiastes. D.
Barthélemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila: Première publication intégrale du texte des fragments du
dodécaprophéton (VTSup 10; Leiden: Brill, 1963) 21-26 suggests it was translated by Aquila.
Hence, the end of the composition process of the New Testament texts would roughly coincide
with the completion of the Septuagint translation process. It should be added that even the
"canonical" status of such Books as Ecclesiastes, Esther and Canticles was debated as late as early
4th century C.E.
3. The other languages into which the biblical books had been translated at an earlier stage are:
Coptic (3rd century: especially Sahidic and Bohairic dialects), Armenian (early 5th century),
Georgian (5th century), Ethiopic (also known as Ge’ez; 4th century). All these belong to the so-
called eastern versions of the Septuagint. In addition to the Latin language, in the western
Churches the Greek biblical texts were translated into Gothic version (4th century).

• 47 •
 ΔΙΕΘΝΕΣ ΕΠΙΣΤΗΜΟΝΙΚΟ ΣΥΝΕΔΡΙΟ
«Η ΜΕΤΑΦΡΑΣΗ ΤΗΣ ΒΙΒΛΟΥ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑ ΚΑΙ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΚΠΑΙΔΕΥΣΗ»

1. The Vetus Latina Bible

One cannot adequately understand the history of the Vulgata without first studying
that of the Vetus Latina. The Vetus Latina (“Old Latin”) was basically a translation from
Greek into Latin of both Old and New Testament texts, often referred to in biblical
scholarship as the Greek or Alexandrian Bible4. Many of these Greek source texts
(Vorlage) are no longer extant5. This first translation of the biblical books into Latin
was accomplished sometime after the middle of the 2nd century C.E. It was intended for
those who preferred Latin to Greek, could not understand enough Greek, or could not
understand Greek at all. At first, the target audience was North Africa (mainly present-
day Tunisia and Algeria), then parts of Italy, and the southeastern reaches of present-
day Spain and France. Thus, Tertullian (ca. 160–220) already used biblical texts in Latin.
However, the spread of Christianity beyond these areas demanded the production
of new copies of the Vetus Latina biblical books. At times, certain scribes also felt
compelled to make minor revisions, the number of which grew over time. Thus,
already in the mid-3rd century, Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, is known to have quoted
from a revised Latin version.
Minor changes were often made simply with the aim of updating the Latin language
which was experiencing an unprecedented evolution during this period. On the other
hand, other revisions were made in conformity with various Greek versions that were
in circulation around the Mediterranean. Consequently, in time there appeared many
textual differences among the various biblical manuscripts.
In general, scholars distinguish two text types: African and European. For the
Old Testament, the European revision was based primarily upon a Greek text of the
Antiochene type. Some revisions may post-date Jerome6. There may even be some
evidence of attempts to bring the Old Latin version closer to the Hebrew text as well.
However, there does not seem to be sufficient evidence to conclude that the many
textual differences are due to a new translation7.

4. It should be noted that there was no unified number or order of biblical books in the first
centuries of Christian-ity for either Testament. Each local Church followed its own “canon”. For
a summary view, see J. Barton, “The Old Testament Canon”, The New Cambridge History of the
Bible, I: From the Beginnings to 600 (eds. J.C. Paget & J. Schaper) (Cambridge: University Press,
2013) 145-64; J. Verheyden, “The New Testament Canon”, NCHB, I, 389-411.
5. Around the same time in the 2nd century C.E., the translation of biblical texts known as
Peshitta, accomplished for the Syriac speaking Christians, came to light. However, the main
difference with the Vetus Latina is that most of the Old Testament books in Peshitta were very
probably translated from a proto-Masoretic Hebrew text. From this point of view, the Peshitta
would seem to more closely resemble the Vulgata.
6. So P.-M. Bogaert, “The Latin Bible”, NCHB, I, 511.
7. See J. Gribomont, “Les plus anciennes traductions latines”, La Bible de Tous les Temps, II
(Paris: Beauchesne, 1985) 44-65; Bogaert, “Latin Bible”, 505-6.

• 48 •
 «Η ΜΕΤΑΦΡΑΣΗ ΤΗΣ ΒΙΒΛΟΥ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑ ΚΑΙ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΚΠΑΙΔΕΥΣΗ»

The Vetus Latina biblical texts continued to prevail until sometime in the 7th/8th
century. Some of these texts were published as part of the later Vulgata Bibles as late
as the 13th century. This was the case with Tobit, Judith, 1–2 Maccabees and the Acts
of the Apostles. Occasionally texts from the Old Latin were added to Jerome’s (later)
translations from the Hebrew in places where the latter was shorter, e.g. Esther and
Daniel8.
It is worth emphasizing that the version most used and commented by Latin
Church Fathers throughout the first millennium was the Vetus Latina – not the
Vulgata. For text-critical purposes, it is important to note that the Old Latin biblical
texts –at least the earliest ones– are often closer to the Old Greek (OG) than many later
Greek manuscripts. In specific cases, they reflect, via the Greek, the He-brew Vorlage9.
To date, only individual portions of the Vetus Latina manuscript tradition survive,
as does a great number of quotations by the Latin Fathers and liturgical manuals. Some
of them contain capitula, that is, division into sections with some subtitles. Most of the
Vetus Latina textual evidence was collected by P. Sabatier, Bibliorum sacrorum latinae
versiones antiquae seu Vetus Italica (Paris: Ex regia Reginaldi Florentain Rhemensis
typographia, 1743-1749, 21751). Next to the Vetus Latina version, Sabatier also offers
that of Vulgata.
Quotations from the Church Fathers are being collected anew by the Vetus Latina
Institut of Beuron in the series Vetus Latina: Die Reste der altlateinische Bibel. Nach
Petrus Sabatier neu gesammelt und herausgegeben von der Erzabtei Beuron (ResABib)
(eds. B. Fischer et alii) (Freiburg: Verlag Herder, 21963 – )10. The same is being done
with regard to the manuscript evidence11. A new critical edition of the Old Latin
biblical texts is now in progress and is being published by the Institute of Beuron in
the same series ResABib (eds. B. Fischer et alii; Freiburg: Verlag Herder, 1949 – ). To
date, only critical editions of several books from the Old and New Testaments have
appeared12.

8. Bogaert, “Latin Bible”, 508, 520-21.

9. See Bogaert, “Latin Versions”, Anchor Bible Dictionary, VI (New York: Doubleday, 1992) 800.
10. For an inventory of Patristic evidence, see H. J. Frede, Kirchenschriftsteller: Verzeichnis und
Sigel (ResABib 1/1; Freiburg, Verlag Herder, 1981); idem, Kirchenschriftsteller: Aktualisie-
rungsheft 1984 (ResABib 1/1A; Freiburg: Verlag Herder, 1984); idem, Kirchenschriftsteller: Aktu-
alisierungsheft 1988 (ResABib 1/1B; Freiburg: Verlag Herder, 1988); H. J. Frede – R. Gryson,
Kirchenschriftsteller: Aktualisierungsheft 1999, Compléments 1999 (ResABib 1/1C; Freiburg:
Verlag Herder, 1999); idem, Kirchenschriftsteller: Aktualisierungsheft 2004, Compléments 2004
(ResABib 1/1D; Freiburg: Verlag Herder, 2004).
11. For an inventory of manuscript evidence, see R. Gryson, Altlateinische Handschriften/
Manuscrits Vieux Latins. Première partie: MSS 1-275 (Freiburg 1999); Deuxième Partie: MSS
300-485 (Freiburg 2004).
12. For more information, see www.vetuslatina.org.

• 49 •
 ΔΙΕΘΝΕΣ ΕΠΙΣΤΗΜΟΝΙΚΟ ΣΥΝΕΔΡΙΟ
«Η ΜΕΤΑΦΡΑΣΗ ΤΗΣ ΒΙΒΛΟΥ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑ ΚΑΙ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΚΠΑΙΔΕΥΣΗ»

2. The Vulgata Bible

A gradual change in the history of the Latin Bible tradition had been taking place from
the early 5th century onward. This slow process was generated by the appearance of
Jerome’s translations of the biblical texts, in particular those of the Old Testament.
The history of what later became defined as Vulgata (Βουλγάτα) is probably even
more complex than that of the Vetus Latina13. In fact, as will be shown, there was no
uniform, unchanging Vulgate Bible. In what follows, I shall outline only some ba-sic
aspects of this centuries’ long process.

2.1. Jerome’s Revisions of the Vetus Latina Texts

Jerome (Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus) lived ca. 346/7–420 C.E.14. In the year 382,
Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damasus I (ca. 320–384 C.E.) to revise the existing
Gospels and perhaps other New Testament books in Latin in conformity with Greek
manuscripts, some of which came from Alex-andria15. This Jerome did in Rome working
as the Pope’s secretary (Epist. cxiii 10). He seems also to have revised some Old Testament
Latin books, especially the Book of Psalms16. It should be empha-sized that the end result
was not a new translation but a revised version of Vetus Latina texts. It is not known how
many biblical books Jerome actually revised while in Rome, and to what degree.
After the Pope’s death in December of 384, Jerome left Rome and eventually ended
up in Palestine, where he spent much of his time in Bethlehem. There he continued to
revise more Latin biblical books, this time by using Greek manuscripts he had mostly
found there. It is known, for example, that sometime, perhaps in 389, Jerome made a
second revision of the existing Latin Psalter, this time by using a copy of a Hexaplaric
Psalter of Origen which he had access to, as well as some other books of the Old
Testament: Job, Proverbs, Canticles, Ecclesiastes and 1–2 Chronicles17.
The most important representative of this revised Psalter is the so-called versio
Gallicana or Psalterium Gallicanum18. In time, this Psalter became part of the later

13. The term Vulgata applied to Jerome’s work seems to be of late medieval origin, perhaps as late
as the 13th century; see E. T. Sutcliffe, “The Name Vulgate”, Bib 29 (1948) 345-52. It should be
recalled that the term vulgata was used by both Augustine and Jerome to refer to the Greek
biblical books or their Latin translation, i.e. Vetus Latina.
14. For a concise more recent summary of Jerome’s life, see A. Kamesar, “Jerome”, NCHB, I, 653-74.
15. Jerome seems to have acquired his proficiency in Greek while in Antioch ca. 373-374.
16. Kamesar, “Jerome”, 657.
17. See Bogaert, “Latin Versions”, 800.
18. For further details, see P.-M. Bogaert, “Le psautier latin des origines au XIIe. Essai d’histoire”, Der
Septuaginta-Psalter und seine Tochterübersetzungen. Symposium in Göttingen 1997 (eds. A. Aejme-
laeus & U. Quast) (AAWG.PhHK 230; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000) 51-81.

• 50 •
 «Η ΜΕΤΑΦΡΑΣΗ ΤΗΣ ΒΙΒΛΟΥ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑ ΚΑΙ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΚΠΑΙΔΕΥΣΗ»

Vulgata Bible tradition. It also was the official version in the Western Church until
1986 (see below) and was used for Gregorian chant. It is still in use today in some
monasteries and in other more traditionalist sectors of Latin Catholicism. It should be
added that the liturgical use of this Psalter over the centuries rendered it less susceptible
to alteration in comparison with other biblical texts.
At the beginning, however, Jerome was criticized in some Church circles for
introducing certain innovations – including vocabulary (Augustine, Epist. lxxi). But
in time Jerome’s higher quality revised texts of the Gospels, in particular, came to be
appreciated quite soon and prevailed in Church usage.

2.2. The Nature of Jerome’s Vulgata

From 390 until 405 (or 407) Jerome undertook an even more ambitious project
whose nature must now be defined. Much about Jerome’s activity and viewpoints we
know from the prefaces to his many commentaries on biblical books as well as from
his many letters19. With regard to the Old Testament, in fact, Jerome began to believe
more and more in hebraica veritas, that is, in “the Hebrew truth”. Therefore, he first
set himself to the study of the Hebrew. Scholars debate as to when and where Jerome
first studied Hebrew. In any event, at some point Jerome considered himself to be a vir
trilinguis (Apol. adv. Ruf. iii 6)20.
It is not known what prompted Jerome to so valorize the Hebrew text. Already
around 380, while still in Constantinople, Jerome undertook the translation of some
of Origen’s works and occasionally discussed their translation techniques. Here too
he became a student of Gregory of Nazianzus, who had a high regard for Origen’s
works. Subsequently, Jerome was probably influenced by Origen’s Hexaplaric version.
As stated above, Jerome used it for revising the Psalter and likely for the revision of
some other OT books. As the name itself suggests, the Hexapla was a six-column Old
Testament: (1) the Hebrew text, (2) a transliteration of it into Greek letters, (3, 4) the
2nd century translations of the Hebrew into Greek by Aquila and Symmachus, (5) the
eclectic Septuagint text reconstructed by Origen, and (6) the revision of the Greek text
by Theodotion (3rd century)21.

19. On the history of Jerome’s life and a detailed analysis of his works, see J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome:
His Life, Writings, and Controversies (New york, N: Harper & Row, 1975), and more recently, A.
Fürst, Hieronymus: Askese und Wissenschaft in der Spätantike (Freiburg: Herder, 2003).
20. It would seem that at first Jerome had studied some Hebrew while in Antioch (374-379; Ep.
125.12). Then, continued learning Hebrew in Rome (382-385). In fact, Jerome claims to have
studied the translation of the bibli-cal texts from Hebrew into Greek by Aquila and some Hebrew
scrolls from Roman synagogues (Ep. 32.1; 36.1). Jerome would then improve his knowledge of
Hebrew in Palestine (after 385).
21. Some scholars hypothesize Theodotion translated anew at least some biblical books from
Hebrew into Greek.

• 51 •
 ΔΙΕΘΝΕΣ ΕΠΙΣΤΗΜΟΝΙΚΟ ΣΥΝΕΔΡΙΟ
«Η ΜΕΤΑΦΡΑΣΗ ΤΗΣ ΒΙΒΛΟΥ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑ ΚΑΙ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΚΠΑΙΔΕΥΣΗ»

It is traditionally held that Jerome translated into Latin all books found in the
Hebrew Bible canon22. Once again he appears to have started with Psalms, but this time
iuxta Hebraeos, which was a third version of Psalms Jerome had actually produced.
He continued with the Prophets – including Daniel (390-392), Samuel–Kings (392/3),
Job (before 394), Ezra–Nehemiah (which appeared in 394 as Esdras), 1–2 Chronicles
(395-396), Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles (398), the Pentateuch (ca. 400), Esther
(before 404), Joshua, Judges and Ruth (405-406).
How Jerome treated texts that were not in the Hebrew Bible canon but were already
part of the Vetus Latina (the texts later called deutero-canonical) is less clear. For
Judith and Tobit (before 407), Jerome used a “Chaldean” (=Aramaic) version, although
he seems to have relied much on the Vetus Latina translation too (Praef. Tob; Praef.
Jdt.)23. With 1 Maccabees the situation is even less clear. In Prologus Scripturarum,
known since the 15th century as Prologus Galeatus, Jerome writes: “I have found the
First Book of Maccabees in Hebrew (in Hebraicum reperi)” (Prol. Gal. 55-56). Most
scholars, however, doubt whether Jerome actually translated or even revised them. The
same holds true for Sirach (Praef. Libr. Sal. 14-17). With regard to 2 Maccabees (Prol.
Gal. 56-57) and Wisdom of Solomon (Praef. Libr. Sal. 17-19), Jerome believed these
were written originally in Greek. Jerome also did not translate Baruch (=1 Baruch 1–5)
and the Epistle of Jeremiah (=1 Baruch 6)24. As for the so-called Greek supplements,
Jerome very probably used the Hexaplaric version of Origen and Origen’s use of
obeli, which indicated a “missing” Hebrew text. These obeli can be seen in Jerome’s
translation of the Additions to Esther and Daniel25.
To be sure, the nature of Jerome’s translation and/or revisionary activity is much
more complex. In fact, there continues to be scholarly debate over whether Jerome
actually translated, fully revised, or simply copied a given biblical text with some minor
changes. Also, when Jerome encountered problems with the Hebrew text, he would
resort to the existing translations in Greek (i.e. Aquila and Symmachus), recensions of
it (Origen and Theodotion), or the Vetus Latina.
Furthermore, based on the available textual evidence, there is reason to believe that
more hands were at work, especially after the lifetime of Jerome in the case of some New

22. Some scholars, however, doubt to what extent Jerome knew Hebrew. In any event, Jerome
was among few Church Fathers who knew Hebrew, the others being Origen, Ephraim Syrus,
Epiphanius and Hillary.
23. See further E. L. Gallagher, “Why did Jerome Translate Tobit and Judith?”, HTR (2015) 356-75.
In fact, the Prefaces which Jerome wrote to biblical books he had translated together with his
many epistles are very important source of information for our understanding of his approach
to various biblical texts.
24. In the Vetus Latina Baruch was bound to Jeremiah.
25. Including the Song of the Three Youths, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon.

• 52 •
 «Η ΜΕΤΑΦΡΑΣΗ ΤΗΣ ΒΙΒΛΟΥ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑ ΚΑΙ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΚΠΑΙΔΕΥΣΗ»

Testament books. Thus, Jerome probably did not translate or even revise the Pauline
and the so-called Catholic Epistles; the same seems to be true for Acts of the Apostles
and Revelation. These books were probably translated in part by Pelagian circles, in
part by Rufinus of Aquileia. The latter also probably gathered all the translations of
Jerome with the revisions together around the 5th century26.
To be sure, only case-by-case study can provide a better understanding of Jerome’s
precise activity. It is, however, misleading to think that Jerome made a new Latin
translation of all biblical books. The Vulgata was partly a translation, partly a substantial
revision of Vetus Latina books, and partly a simple copying (or better, a new edition)
of already existing Latin biblical texts. For the most part, Jerome is solely responsible
for the result. However, a few other authors brought their input too. All these factors
must be considered when speaking about the Vulgata. In fact, a comprehensive history
of the step-by-step formation of Vulgata still needs to be written.
Jerome’s completion of this opus magnum was a real milestone, especially as far
as the translation of the Hebrew biblical books into Latin is concerned. Nevertheless,
in the following centuries, the spread of Jerome’s translations was rather gradual and
limited to certain Western Christian communities. As stated above, the Vetus Latina
texts continued to prevail for several centuries. There were several reasons for this:
First, some Latin Church Fathers were rather skeptical about Jerome’s translations,
especially those from the Hebrew. Thus, Augustine (354–430) believed that the
Septuagint –and so the Vetus Latina which derived from it– was still to be regarded
as the really divinely inspired text27. Now, however, there were two Latin versions of
the Old Testament in circulation. By contrast, the Greek-speaking Church Fathers
enjoyed direct access to the Septuagint, from which most of the quotations from
the Old Testament in the New Testament came. To all this should be added that, by
Jerome’s time, there were already in circulation many biblical commentaries written
by both Greek and Latin Church Fathers, whose books were ultimately based on the
Greek source text.
Second, the concept of biblical canon itself as well as the order of individual
books was not unified among Christians in the 5th century C.E., as evidenced
by the Greek codices of the 4th/5th centuries: Vaticanus [B]28, Sinaiticus [Ŋ]29 and

26. On these aspects, see Bogaert, “Latin Versions”, 801. For a more nuanced view, see Kamesar,
“Jerome”, 659.
27. However, Augustine himself praised the great knowledge of biblical texts Jerome had in one
of his letters addressed directly to him; see Migne, PL XXII col. 912; XXXII col. 247.
28. Lacks 1–4 Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasses in the OT. The so-called General Epistles are
placed in be-tween the Acts of the Apostles (which is arranged in 36 chapters) and the Pauline Epistles.
29. Lacks 2–3 Maccabees in the OT; includes the Letter of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas
in the NT. The Pauline Epistles are placed in between the Gospels and the Acts.

• 53 •
 ΔΙΕΘΝΕΣ ΕΠΙΣΤΗΜΟΝΙΚΟ ΣΥΝΕΔΡΙΟ
«Η ΜΕΤΑΦΡΑΣΗ ΤΗΣ ΒΙΒΛΟΥ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑ ΚΑΙ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΚΠΑΙΔΕΥΣΗ»

Alexandrinus [A]30, or the Greek-Latin Codex Bezae [D] for the New Testament31.
The appearance of Jerome’s version based on Hebrew text further complicated
matters. This challenged the widespread Christian tradition which followed the
Septuagint canon. This not-withstanding, Jerome did make us of the so-called
“deutero-canonical” books which, however, he called “apocryphal”32.
Third, because it was based on a Hebrew source text, Jerome’s new Old Testament
books sometimes differed in length or in the order of chapters from those of the Vetus
Latina33. This posed not few problems for certain Christian communities.
Fourth, by Jerome’s time, the Vetus Latina biblical texts became part of the Church
liturgical manuals. This was especially the case with the Old Latin Psalter based on
the Greek. As stated above, Jerome himself contributed with a revision of this Psalter
in conformity with a Hexaplaric Greek version. Its importance can be deduced from
the fact that it was this revised Psalter which appeared in some medieval Vulgata Bible
editions and not the one Jerome translated from Hebrew.

Textual Transmission of Jerome’s Vulgata: Between Source Texts and Canon34

Notwithstanding all the factors mentioned above, interest in Jerome’s translations and
revisions continued to grow in the Middle Ages, so that it began to be referred to as the versio
vulgata, or simply Vulgata. There are believed to be over 10,000 Vulgata manuscript copies
in existence. The earliest surviving testimonies of Jerome’s Vulgata are: Codex Fuldensis,
which contains the New Testament only (ca. 545); Codex Amiatinus, which contains an
almost complete Latin Bible, originally produced in three copies (689-716). A copy of
Codex Amiatinus is very well preserved in the Biblioteca Lauren-ziana in Florence35. It is
composed of 1,040 folios, each measuring 49x 34x13 cm and weighing about 34 kilograms.
On each folio there are two columns per page with 43/44 lines per column.

30. Includes the Odes of Solomon in the OT, and 1–2 Clement in the NT. The General Epistles
are placed in between the Acts and the Pauline Epistles.
31. The order of the Gospels is as follows: Matthew, John, Luke, Mark.
32. According to various estimates Jerome cited from this corpus over 180 times. This view of
‘canon’ was also followed by Rufinus (Symb. 36).
33. One clear example is the Book of Jeremiah. The Hebrew version of it is by 12% longer than
its Greek version; this amounts to some 2.700 words. Also, chapters 46–51 of the Hebrew text are
found in Greek after 25:13. As already pointed out, in the case of Esther and Daniel for example,
Jerome translated the “additions” from a Greek version.
34. On the transmission of the biblical books in Latin, see the summaries by P.-M., Bogaert, “The
Latin Bible, c. 600 to c. 900”, NCHB, II, 69-92; F. van Liere, “The Latin Bible, c. 900 to the Council
of Trent, 1546”, NCHB, II, 93-109.
35. To date, only fragments of the other two copies are extant.

• 54 •
 «Η ΜΕΤΑΦΡΑΣΗ ΤΗΣ ΒΙΒΛΟΥ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑ ΚΑΙ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΚΠΑΙΔΕΥΣΗ»

By the 9th century, the Latin biblical texts began to be widely produced in one
volume. In the published Vulgata Bibles up to 13th century, we find the following
contents: Jerome’s translations from the Hebrew together with Tobit and Judith, the
Greek additions to Esther and Daniel, the Hexaplaric (versio Gallicanum) Psalter (that is,
iuxta Septuaginta not iuxta Hebraeos), the revised Latin Gospels by Jerome, whereas the
Books of Sirach, Wisdom and 1–2 Maccabees, together with the other NT books, were
largely based on revisions (very probably not by Jerome) of the Vetus Latina versions. It
is worth mentioning here the division of the Vulgata into chapters by Stephen Langton
(1150-1228), a system that prevailed in Vulgate Bible manuscript transmission36.
However, already by the end of the first millennium, several versions of Vulgata
were in circulation within the Western Church which sometimes differed from one
another quite substantially. To give just one example. Around the mid-13th century, the
Dominican Order in Paris decided to correct the existing Vulgata version. But rather
than restoring its text to more closely conform to Jerome’s version, two Dominican
correctors translated anew certain verses or expressions by using an available Hebrew
source text. About the same time and again in Paris, the Franciscan scholar William
de Mara set out to restore the Vulgata text by using older available Latin manuscripts.
However, he would mostly leave intact those verses or words which had no parallel in
Hebrew text37. The process of revisions against Hebrew source texts continued in the
following centuries.
In addition to the quality of the text, there was the ongoing issue of canon: namely,
which books to include or exclude, and in which order. Already Jerome himself and
some later Vulgata editors included in their New Testament corpus the purported
Epistle to the Laodiceans mentioned by Paul in Colossians 4:16. This epistle appears in
many Vulgata editions between the 6th and 12th centuries. Subsequently, the authority
of this epistle began to sharply diminish.
By contrast, by the 13th century, three more writings began to be inserted in
certain Vulgata editions: the Prayer of Manasses (Oratio Manassis), 2 Esdras and 3
Esdras38. In fact, Jerome did not translate them, just as he did not the Odes of Solomon.
Consequently, by this time these three writings acquired the status of Scripture for
at least for some Christian communities. This is further corroborated by their use in
medieval commentaries. Sometimes the Latin version of these three texts was printed

36. The history of the division of the Latin Bible into section and later into chapters is much
more complex. See D. De Bruyne, Summaries, Divisions and Rubrics of the Latin Bible.
Introduction by Pierre-Maurice Bogaert and Thomas O’Loughlin (StudThTr 18; Brepols 2015).
37. See further D. Barthélemy, Studies in the Text of the Old Testament (Textual Criticism and the
Translator 3; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbraus, 2012) 513-14.
38. See for example: Codex latinus 5 of 1231 C.E.; the Parisinus latinus 15467 of 1270 C.E.; the
Parisinus latinus 16721 of the mid-13th century at the Bibliothèque Mazarine in Paris.

• 55 •
 ΔΙΕΘΝΕΣ ΕΠΙΣΤΗΜΟΝΙΚΟ ΣΥΝΕΔΡΙΟ
«Η ΜΕΤΑΦΡΑΣΗ ΤΗΣ ΒΙΒΛΟΥ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑ ΚΑΙ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΚΠΑΙΔΕΥΣΗ»

side by side with their Greek counter version39.

The same was the case with the editio princeps of Johannes Guttenberg, published at
Mainz in 1453/4 and in the following. In fact, with the invention of the printing press,
the Vulgata was among the first –if not the very first– book to have been published.
Each page contained 42 lines; hence the sigla “B42”. Only forty-nine copies, or rather
substantial portions of them which belong to this (first) printing, are known to be
extant, with only nineteen complete copies. The most important copy of the first group
(=A) is the Biliothèque Mazarine copy. There soon followed a second printing, but
probably by a different printer. The most important copy of the second group (=B)
is the Vatican Barberini copy. However, the two printings do not attest to the same
number of pages. Furthermore, there are some textual differences between the two
printed Vulgata groups40.
Two important decisions that regarded Vulgata texts were pronounced during the
Council of Trent (Italy), on April the 8th of 154641. On the one hand, the Prayer of
Manasses and 3–4 Esdras were excluded from the official canon of biblical books, as
was the Epistle to the Laodiceans. On the other hand, the Vulgata was declared to
be the authoritative version of the Bible in the Catholic Church – which, however,
necessitated revision. It should be emphasized that the Council conferred authority on
this Vulgata against other Latin translations of biblical books that were in circulation.
The Council, however, did not deprive of authority the Hebrew, Aramaic, or the Greek
texts of the biblical books which were to be considered the source texts42.
Thus, the first (non-official) revised Vulgata was soon published in 1547 in Louvain
by Johannes Henten, who used as his basis the texts of the Greek Biblia Complutensis
Polyglotta (1520) and Stephanus’ Vulgata edition of 1540. With regard to Stephanus,
in 1553 and 1555 he published two other editions of the Vulgata with verse numbers43.
However, the official Tridentine Vulgata was published only in 1583, in Antwerp
(Belgium), by a commission under the guidance of Frans Lucas, who used as his basis
the third revised edition of Henten’s Vulgata.

39. See, for example, the Vulgata editions of both Robertus Stephanus, in 1540, and Johannes
Brentius, in 1544.
40. Barthélemy, Studies, 498-513, collected many textual differences between the two groups.
41. For the text of the decisions, see Enchiridion Biblicum 57–60.
42. Enchiridion Biblicum, 61-64: “Moreover, the same 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 ages,
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”.
43. On Stephanus’ three Bible editions, see briefly Barthélemy, Studies, 520-22.

• 56 •
 «Η ΜΕΤΑΦΡΑΣΗ ΤΗΣ ΒΙΒΛΟΥ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑ ΚΑΙ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΚΠΑΙΔΕΥΣΗ»

A few years later, Pope Sixtus V himself took the initiative to correct the text (nostra
nos ipsi manu correximus). In 1590, he published Vulgata Sixtina which excluded the
texts of the Prayer of Manasses and 3–4 Esdras. The basis for this edition was the
above-mentioned Codex Amiatinus, which was kept by the Pope from July 12th of 1587
until January 19th of 1592.
In 1592, however, a new revised version of the Vulgata was published at the
auspices of Pope Clement VIII with the assistance of the Jesuit Robertus Bellarminus.
This edition based itself partly on the B42 version, partly on Stephanus’ 1558 Bible
edition, partly on Codex Amiatinus and other Latin manuscripts. The so-called
Vulgata Clementina restored the Prayer of Manasses together with 3-4 Esdras, but this
time placed them all after the New Testament, in an Appendix; so too did the following
editions. The Praefatio ad Lectorem refers back to the Council’s decision and reiterates
what Sixtus V had stated earlier with regard to these books44. The Vulgata Clementina
with its 76 books remained the authoritative version in the Catholic Church for over
two centuries. Several subsequent editions appeared which were also referred to as the
Vulgata Sixtina–Clementina45.
In the nova editio of 1913, the three books were, once again, excluded from the
Vulgata, just as before, in 1862 and later in the 1959 editions. By contrast, they re-
appeared in the Appendix of the Stuttgart edition of Robertus Weber in 1969 (see
below) together with the Letter to the Laodiceans.
In 1979, however, Pope John Paul II approved the edition of Nova Vulgata46. During
the process of revision which followed this publication, scholars paid particular
attention to the critical editions of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek biblical texts.
This led some scholars to claim that this new Vulgata has had undergone so much
revision over fifteen centuries that it little reflects Jerome’s translations and that the
name Vulgata is itself inappropriate. This newer revision does not contain the Prayer of
Manasses or 3–4 Esdras, just as was the case with Jerome’s Vulgata47. Ad fontes!
Before concluding, it should be stated that the best and most complete critical
edition of Jerome’s Vulgata Old Testament is Biblia Sacra. Iuxta Vulgatam versionem

44. See here D. De Bruyne, Prefaces for the Latin Bible (StThTr 19; Brepols 2015). The predace
offer precious information on the history of the Latin Bible(s).
45. Thus, one finds the Prayer of Manasses in the Appendix after the NT, followed by 3–4 Esdras
in Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis. Sixti V. Pontificis Maximi Jussu Recognita, et Clementis VIII
Auctoritate edita… (Venetiis 1804).
46. In 1986 was published the editio typica altera which was republished in 1998. In the Appendix
are reproduced the excerpts of both the Decretum de canonicis scripturis and the Decretum de
editione et usu sacrorum librorum of the fourth session of the Council of Trent, as well as the
Praefatio ad Lectorem to the three editions of the Vulgata Clementina, published in 1592, in 1593
and in 1598, respectively.
47. It includes 1–2 Maccabees.

• 57 •
 ΔΙΕΘΝΕΣ ΕΠΙΣΤΗΜΟΝΙΚΟ ΣΥΝΕΔΡΙΟ
«Η ΜΕΤΑΦΡΑΣΗ ΤΗΣ ΒΙΒΛΟΥ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑ ΚΑΙ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΚΠΑΙΔΕΥΣΗ»

ad codicum fidem (Romae: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1926-1995) prepared by the

Benedictine scholars of the San Girolamo abbey in Rome (=R)48. With regard to the
Psalter, it has it iuxta Septuaginta. As often happens with certain critical editions,
this one too has both its positive aspects and flaws, as Barthélemy and other scholars
have noted49. The critical edition of the Vulgata New Testament was prepared by J.
Wordsworth, H. J. White, H. F. D. Sparks and A. W. Adams, Novum Testamentum
Domini nostri Iesu Christi Latine secundum edi-tionem sancti Hieronymi, I–III (Oxonii:
Clarendon Press, 1889-1954). A manual edition consisting of Vulgata both Old and
New Testaments is that of R. Weber et alii (=W), Biblia Sacra juxta vulgatam ver-
sionem, I–II (Stuttgart: Wurttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1969, 21975)50. It includes
the Psalms both iuxta LXX and iuxta Hebraeos. Both these editions reproduce the
“Prefaces” which Jerome wrote to in-dividual biblical books.

Conclusion
In order to fully grasp the role of the Vulgata in Church tradition, one must first
understand its complex nature in the light of Vetus Latina. When speaking about
Vulgata, we necessarily refer to a variety of revised versions and translations. In one
way or another, all of them go ultimately back to Jerome. His concerns for revising
and/or translating the biblical texts were dictated by at least three important reasons:
language requirement, liturgical needs, and scholarly and theological debates. These
concerns have, in fact, dominated the fifteen centuries’ long history of Vulgata Bible(s).

48. It was begun under Pope Pius XI and completed under Pope John Paul II and includes 1–2
Maccabees too.
49. Studies, 498-513.
50. In 2007 appeared the editio quinta of Weber’s Vulgata version prepared by Roger Gryson. In
addition to the above mentioned texts, it also includes 1–2 Maccabess and the whole New
Testament.

• 58 •