Vulgate

VULGATE. - Official version of the Bible in the Latin Church, called Vulgata editio librorum sacrorum from the Council of Trent (1545-63) onward. Ancient exegetes, in particular St. Jerome, used the term to indicate the translation of the Septuagint (v.), which was very widespread both in its Greek text and in the Latin version.

I. HISTORY OF THE TEXT

The V. is closely linked to the name of St. Jerome, who applied all his energy and his rare scriptural expertise to offering the Latin Church a corrected version of the Bible to replace the various inferior translations by then circulating with no small number of errors. The need for a critically reliable text was felt by learned men, such as St. Augustine (De doctrina christiana, II, 16: PL 34, 43) and Pope Damasus. Indeed it was St. Jerome who began the work precisely on the advice of Pope Damasus in Rome in 383-84; it was completed only more than twenty years later, in 405-406.

The V. is called the Hieronymian version. This statement is only approximately correct. Certain books, in fact (Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, I and II Maccabees, the deuterocanonical parts of Esther), owe nothing to the Stridonian, who neglected these books not included in the Hebrew canon (v. BIBBIA). Of the books of the New Testament, none was translated by Jerome, who limited himself to revising the four Gospels on the basis of the best Greek codices (cf. the dedicatory letter to the Pope: PL 29, 557-62) and, less carefully, the other books. The revision of the Acts and the Letters of the Apostles is still denied by some modern scholars, though with arguments that are not apodictic. As regards the rest of the Old Testament, the Psalter is a version by Jerome, but from the Greek text of the Septuagint, completed at Bethlehem around 390; the other protocanonical books were translated from the original text between 391 and 406; while the little books of Judith and Tobit were rendered into Latin using an Aramaic text, which was probably not the original, but only a translation of the Hebrew.

As can be seen, the V. is not an organic work, carried out according to well-determined principles. Hence it is not easy to give an overall judgment of it. The part not attributable to St. Jerome must be judged like the ancient versions (v. LATINE, VERSIONI della BIBBIA). For some books, such as Maccabees, it can be demonstrated that the choice among the various versions in circulation was not always the happiest. The New Testament presents itself with a text highly esteemed by critics, who gladly use it in their Greek editions; but the very fact that Jerome not rarely corrects the reading of the V. in his Pauline commentaries is a sign that he, only so as not to offend the excitability of his contemporaries with a novelty not absolutely necessary, contented himself with a rather superficial revision. For the Old Testament, the text of the Psalter is undoubtedly inferior, from the point of view of textual criticism and for clarity, to that of the Hieronymian Psalterium ex Hebraeo, which is a direct translation of the original text, and which never obtained admission into the V.

The critical value of the version of the other books, while on the whole very satisfactory, is varied. This depends on the long period of time over which the work was protracted, on intrinsic difficulties and on external factors, such as the speed (the Song of Songs, the Proverbs and Ecclesiastes were translated in only three days) or his personal opinion regarding the inspiration of some book (Judith was translated reluctantly in one night, Tobit in one day).

Compared with the ancient versions, the work of Jerome it has the precious advantage of deriving directly from the original texts, not from a translation, which already departs considerably from the Hebrew, giving rise to very difficult problems of textual criticism. Linguistic competence and the help of learned rabbis, in certain cases, eliminated or reduced possible misunderstandings and therefore inaccuracies in translating. The task was further facilitated by the pre-existing Greek and Latin versions, which were always kept in view. As he often explains in the prefaces and in Ep. 106, Jerome aimed at an accurate fidelity, but not a pedantic one, and at a certain stylistic elegance to remedy the plebeian character of the language and style of the ancient versions. To achieve this latter goal and to respect certain rabbinic legends (cf. Josh. 14, 15; Neh. 9, 7), he sometimes neglected accuracy somewhat: but in general even the critics most prejudiced against the great biblical scholar today agree in noting the perfection of the work. There are few cases in which St. Jerome misunderstood the text (cf. Gen. 49, 2; Jer. 31, 15, etc.); more often he supposes (cf. Is. 16, 1) or accentuates (cf. Is. 11, 10; 12, 3; 51, 5) the messianic sense.

His contemporaries received the new version with little enthusiasm. Rufinus collected all the most clamorous accusations, to which the author responded both in certain prefaces and in his apology (cf. Contra Rufinum, II, 24-35: PL 23, 468-78) with his unmistakable polemical vehemence. Even St. Augustine, who nevertheless lamented the state of the ancient versions, appeared somewhat disconcerted by the audacious novelty (cf. Epp. 71, 4-5; 82, 35: PL 33, 242-43: 291; in the Jeromian epistolary, Epp. 104, 4-5; 116, 35: CSEL, LV, pp. 240-41: 421). Only slowly did he modify his attitude (cf. De doctrina christiana, IV, 15: PL 34, 96; De civitate Dei, XVIII, 43: CSEL, XL, 336). For this reason the version encountered a rather slow and contested diffusion. Its triumph over the ancient traditions was due first of all to St. Gregory the Great (v.), to St. Isidore (v.) of Seville and to St. Bede (v.). During the period of uncertainty as to the preference to be accorded to one or another of the translations, not a few textual alterations occurred. Besides the errors that fatally crept into a book copied very frequently, there were mutual contaminations; so that a reading from an ancient version penetrated into the new one or vice versa. The phenomenon was already noticed in antiquity; recourse was had to safeguarding it by standardizing the text with more or less accurate revisions. Since there were many attempts in this direction, there arose the various types of manuscripts, which for practical convenience and also following good objective criteria are now grouped into "Italian", "Spanish" and "insular" or "Irish" codices.

The best type is the Italian, which derives from the revision of Cassiodorus (6th century) in his monastery of Vivarium and from the recension of Alcuin. Certain Spanish codices show the influence of the recension of Theodulf (9th century), while the insular ones usually carry a text also very widespread in France with influences of the recension of Alcuin (8th century), who carried out his work on commission from Charlemagne. The cataloguing of the manuscripts, however, is often done more out of practical necessity, following the predominant tendency, than for clear objective reasons. Not a few times, in fact, the various types of text turn out to coexist in one and the same manuscript. The phenomenon was noticed by the theologians, who in the 11th-13th centuries labored to publish a uniform and reliable text. It is the time of the famous biblical correctors (v.), who were already preceded in a certain sense by the revisions of St. Peter Damian (v.), of St. Lanfranc (v.), of St. Stephen Harding (v.) and of Nicholas Maniacoria (v.). The most widespread text, whether through manuscripts or by means of printing immediately after its invention, was unfortunately one of the least perfect, namely that in use at the University of Paris, and therefore called "Parisian" or Biblia Parisiensis.

II. AUTHENTICITY OF THE VULGATE

The Council of Trent in session IV (8 April 1546), besides fixing the biblical canon (v. BIBLE), defined the authenticity of the V. and expressed the wish that a corrected edition be printed soon, one that would bear an official character. At the same time it consecrated the appellation of V. As is stated in the decree (cf. Denz-U, 785), the conciliar Fathers thought that "it would be advantageous for the Church of God to declare which among the Latin versions of the Sacred Books should be held as authentic"; therefore it was established and declared "that this ancient and vulgate version, which was approved in the Church through the use of so many centuries, in public readings, disputations, preachings and explanations, be held as authentic and that no one dare or presume to reject it on any pretext."

There has been much discussion about the value and meaning of this decree, which was sometimes interpreted in a rather ridiculous manner, almost as if the Council had substituted this version for the original texts, which some even went so far as to proclaim inspired. Now all admit — and it has also been declared officially — that the decree has no dogmatic value, but a disciplinary one, and that it derogates nothing from the primacy of the original texts, nor from the importance of the ancient versions in other languages, nor even from those Latin versions prior to Jerome. To the V. is conferred only an extrinsic official recognition, which guarantees its authenticity and prescribes its practical use (cf. letter of the Pont. Biblical Commission to the bishops of Italy of 20 Aug. 1941, § 2: AAS, 33 [1941], pp. 468-69).

Since the term "authentic" finds its employment in the juridical field and in the literary one, the question arises as to the meaning to be attributed to it in the present conciliar decision. From the context, however, it clearly appears that the intention is not to settle a difficulty of literary criticism, e.g., concerning the author of the V., but only to attribute to it the force of settling a controversy, that is, of being authoritative in a disputation, etc., and of being a genuine source of Revelation. It is a matter of juridical authenticity, by which the version is recognized as a document worthy of faith. Naturally, for a document to enjoy such a privilege, it must possess an indisputable intrinsic soundness. Juridical authenticity presupposes, in other words, literary authenticity. Since the Council refers expressly (Denz-U, 784) to questions of dogma and morals, one must admit that, at least in the passages concerning such subjects, the V. faithfully reproduces the sense of the original text. Even in this, a perfect fidelity is not required of the version, absolute down to the smallest details, the identity of thought or a substantial similarity being sufficient. Exegetes admit that a dogmatic text may present itself under a more perspicuous form in the translation compared with the original, or under a somewhat different expression. In itself it is not repugnant that a passage of doctrinal value be altered or be entirely missing in the version, since the same truth could be handed down in another text or through tradition. If it is proved that a reading of the V. (cf. Jn. 8, 25; 1 Jn. 5, 7) has no counterpart in the original, the text cannot be presented as a scriptural argument, while still preserving its doctrinal value because it is the expression of a constant tradition. The V., in fact, was declared authentic precisely because of its centuries-long use in the Church. Finally, it should be noted that the Council intended to approve a perfect text that it proposed to have prepared, not just any edition of the version attributed to St. Jerome.

III. OFFICIAL EDITION

The preparation of this typical edition proved much more arduous than the conciliar Fathers had foreseen. In fact the work appeared only in 1592, and undoubtedly not as perfect as would have been possible and as was desired.

Only in 1561 did Pius IV appoint a commission for this purpose under the presidency of four cardinals and with the learned and patient collaboration of G. Sirleto (v.). Taking as its basis the Louvain edition of 1540, edited by John Henten, with the collation of certain manuscripts, the commission prepared a respectable text, but owing to the death of the Pope and for other reasons the edition was not published. In 1569 St. Pius V convoked a new commission, whose soul was still Card. Sirleto, who with the help of many learned men perfected the previous work. But even then the hoped-for edition did not come about. Therefore Sixtus V in 1586 entrusted the task to Card. Carafa (v.) and to yet another commission; after only two months an excellent text was presented to the Pope (codex Carafianus), which may be called the fruit of all the previous labors. Sixtus V was surprised by certain new readings and by the abolition of numerous additions that appeared in the inaccurate editions then in circulation. For this reason he did not approve the text. He himself made a selection of the various proposed emendations, returning in practice to the text of the Louvain Bible with certain rather arbitrary corrections and retaining many interpolations. In 1590 he published the work accompanied by the constitution Aeternus ille of March 1, which has often been discussed, even with regard to the point, by those believing they found in it a nonexistent argument against papal infallibility. Naturally those who had so diligently sought to prepare a correct text saw with regret the publication that disregarded the fruit of their labors. After the death of Sixtus V (Aug. 27, 1590) they asked for the abolition of the apostolic constitution and the prohibition of the sale of the printed copies. To save the memory of the Pontiff, Card. Bellarmine proposed that a new corrected edition should immediately be prepared and disseminated under the name of Sixtus V. The new pope Gregory XIV approved the initiative, appointing a commission of 7 cardinals and 11 consultors under the presidency of Card. Marcantonio Colonna. The guiding norms in practice presupposed a return to the Carafian Codex, but with the recommendation not to make changes unless required by true necessity («ne fieret mutatio, nisi cogeret necessitas»). The commission was instituted on Feb. 7, 1591, and after some months delivered the text to the Pope, who however died on Oct. 15 of that year. His successor, Clement VIII, ordered the final touches. Finally on Nov. 9, 1592, there appeared the Biblia Sacra Vulgatae editionis Sixti Quinti Pont. Max. iussu recognita atque edita, while the copies issued in 1590 were being collected in order to destroy them. Only in the Lyon edition of 1604 was the name of Clement VIII added to that of Sixtus V. For this reason one speaks of the Sixto-Clementine edition, although very little of the work of the first of these two Popes remained in it. And, if a reproach must be made to the revisers of Clement VIII, it is precisely that of not having wholly repudiated the text of the previous edition in order to return to the excellent Carafian codex. In particular they retained too many readings already eliminated by the commission of 1586.

In the following centuries certain scholars (Francesco Luca of Bruges, Carlo Vercellone) collected a good number of variants in order to emend the text; but these were private suggestions that never received official approval. For the New Testament an excellent critical edition was published by the Anglicans John Wordsworth and Henry Julian White. The work, begun with the first fascicle in 1889 and continued by other scholars, is not yet finished (the last fascicle, with the catholic epistles, appeared in 1949), lacking the Apocalypse: but already in 1911, after the death of Wordsworth, H. J. White gave a complete manual edition of it.

Only in 1907 did Pius X entrust to the Benedictine Order the task of preparing a critical edition; later Pius XI built for the monks of Clairvaux, who assumed the burden, the abbey of St. Jerome of the City. The purpose of this initiative is not to offer a new authentic version of Scripture nor to correct the Latin text so as to make it more conformable to the originals, but only to give an edition, as far as possible, identical with the one that came from the pen of St. Jerome and of the other authors of the most ancient version. In the preparatory work the patient scholars followed a careful examination of several hundred manuscripts of the V. in order to determine the "typical" texts that constitute the basis of the critical edition. After a period of preparation under the guidance of A. Gasquet and A. Amelli, the publication was begun (1926) by H. Quentin and continued by P. Salmon. Owing to the difficulty of the work and the adversity of the times, only ten volumes have so far been published, comprising the books Genesis-Psalms. The work has won the praise of critics: but there has been no lack of certain observations and disagreements concerning the value attributed to certain codices, especially with regard to the first books of the Pentateuch.

IV. CODICES

The manuscripts and the editions or reprints of the V. are countless. If liturgical texts and codices containing only a minimal part are also considered, altogether there are approximately 30,000 manuscripts. But even a superficial examination already eliminates many of them because they are of no value for textual criticism, being of too recent a date or reproductions of a single type of text.

Among the "Italian" codices, a place of honor is occupied by the Amiatinus (siglum A), so called from Monte Amiata, where it was long preserved. It is usually the most esteemed manuscript, but its quality varies according to the books. The text derives from the revision of Cassiodorus, but it was written in England in the 7th-8th century by order of the abbot Ceolfrid, who sent it to Rome to make a gift of it to the Pontiff. Since his messenger died during the journey, the manuscript ended up in the Cistercian monastery of Monte Amiata; it is now in the Laurenziana in Florence. It was already collated by the commission of Pius IV and has been the object of study, especially on the part of the critic C. Tischendorf. The Benedictine monks assigned it a place of the first order as a representative of the great family of "Italian" codices; for the book of Tobit, however, it has been placed after other manuscripts. The Fuldensis codex (siglum F), now at Fulda in Germany, is owed to Bishop Victor of Capua [iv.] d. in 554. It contains the New Testament with the addition of the apocryphal letter of St. Paul to the Laodiceans. The four Gospels are unified in the form of a Diatessaron (v.). The Foroiuliensis codex (siglum J) of the 6th-7th century contains the Gospels with some lacuna in that of St. John. For the most part it is preserved in the municipal Library of Cividale del Friuli, while some leaves are in Prague and others in Venice. The Lindisfarnensis (siglum Y) of the 7th-8th century, kept in the British Museum, contains only the four Gospels with the Anglo-Saxon version. It is perhaps the text most similar to that of the Amiatinus. The Paulinus (siglum P) of the 9th century is one of the most elegant codices of the Library of St. Paul in Rome. And it is one of the most reliable witnesses of the recension of Alcuin. The same characteristics, except for artistic beauty, are presented by the Vallicellianus (siglum V) of the 9th century of the Vallicelliana Library in Rome.

Among the most notable "Spanish" codices is the Cavensis (siglum C) of the 8th-9th century, preserved in the abbey of Cava dei Tirreni. Its text, with its many readings of the old Latin version, is a clear document of the easy mutual contamination among the various translations. The Turonensis (siglum G), now in the national Library of Paris, of the 6th-7th century, contains part of the Pentateuch (Genesis-Numbers). It can be considered the archetype of the Spanish codices: this explains the use made of it by the Benedictine editors. The Vaticano-Guelferbytanus (siglum V) is a palimpsest of the 5th century, containing only a large part of the book of Judges and fragments of Ruth and of Job. The Theodulphianus (siglum Θ), also called Mesnianus from the family that owned it, represents the recension of Theodulf, as its name indicates. It contains the whole Bible and is of the 9th century.

Of the "insular" codices, mention should be made of: the Lichfeldensis (siglum L), in Lichfield in England, of the 7th-8th century, containing only Mt. 1:1 - Lk. 3:9; the Dublinensis (siglum D), also called Book of Armagh, of 812; the Kenanensis (siglum Q) or Book of Kells, likewise preserved in Dublin, of the 7th-8th century; the Ottobonianus (siglum O), considered as a typical representative by the Benedictine editors. It contains the Heptateuch with some original readings or readings from the Vetus latina. It was probably written at Bobbio in the 7th-8th century. - See plate CLIV.

Angelo Penna