VOLGATA

VULGATE. – The official version of the Bible in the Latin Church, called the Vulgata editio librorum sacrorum by the Council of Trent (1545–63) and thereafter. Ancient exegetes, in particular St. Jerome, used the term to refer to the translation of the Septuagint (q.v.), which was widely diffused both in its Greek text and in its Latin version.

I. HISTORY OF THE TEXT

The V. is called the Hieronymian version. This statement is only approximately correct. Some books (Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and the deuterocanonical parts of Esther) owe nothing to the Stridonensian, who neglected these books as they were not included in the Hebrew canon (q.V. BIBLE). Of the books of the New Testament, none were translated by Jerome, who limited himself to revising the four Gospels (cf. the dedicatory letter to the Pope: PL 29, 557–62) and, less carefully, the other books on the basis of the best Greek codices. The revision of the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles is still denied by some modern scholars, though not with conclusive arguments. As for 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 Hebrew between 391 and 406, while the books of Judith and Tobit were rendered into Latin from an Aramaic text, which was probably not the original but only a translation from the Hebrew.

As can be seen, the V. is not an organic work, executed according to well-defined principles. Hence it is not easy to form an overall judgment of II. The part not attributable to St. Jerome must be judged like the ancient versions (q.V. LATIN, VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE). For some books, such as Maccabees, it can be shown that the choice among the various circulating versions was not always the happiest. The New Testament presents a text highly esteemed by critics, who gladly use it in their Greek editions; but the very fact that Jerome did not wish to correct it in his Pauline commentaries (cf. his silence regarding the V. text in these works) is a sign that, out of consideration for the excitability of his contemporaries, he contented himself with a rather superficial revision. For the Old Testament, the text of the Psalter is undoubtedly inferior, from the standpoint of textual criticism and clarity, to that of the Hieronymian Psalterium ex Hebraeo, a direct translation from the original Hebrew text, which never gained admission into the V.
The critical value of the version of the other books, though on the whole very satisfactory, varies. This is due to the long period over which the work extended, to intrinsic difficulties, and to external factors such as haste (the Song of Songs, Proverbs, and Ecclesiasticus were translated in only three days) or personal opinion regarding the inspiration of certain books (Judith was translated reluctantly in one night, Tobit in a single day).

Compared with the ancient versions, Jerome’s work had the inestimable advantage of proceeding directly from the original texts, not from a translation that already diverged considerably from the Hebrew, thus giving rise to difficult problems of textual criticism. His linguistic competence and the assistance of learned rabbis in some cases eliminated or reduced possible misunderstandings and hence inaccuracies in translation. The task was further facilitated by the pre-existing Greek and Latin versions, which were always kept in view. As he often explains in his prefaces and in Epistle 106, Jerome aimed at accurate, though not pedantic, fidelity and at a certain stylistic elegance to remedy the vulgar language and style of the ancient versions. To achieve this latter purpose and to respect certain rabbinic legends (cf. Josh. 14:15; Neh. 9:7), he sometimes sacrificed a measure of exactitude; but in general even critics most prejudiced against the great biblical scholar today agree in recognizing the excellence of his work. There are few cases in which St. Jerome misunderstood the text (cf. Gen. 49:2; Jer. 31:15, etc.); more often he supplied (cf. Isa. 16:1) or emphasized (cf. Isa. 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 replied both in some prefaces and in his apology (cf. Contra Rufinum, II, 24–35; PL 23, 468–78) with his unmistakable polemical vehemence. Even St. Augustine, who deplored the state of the ancient versions, was somewhat disconcerted by the bold novelty (cf. Epp. 71, 4–5; 82:35; PL 33, 242–43; 291; in the Hieronymian correspondence, 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 spread rather slowly and met with resistance. Its triumph over the ancient traditions was due above all to St. Gregory the Great (q.v.), St. Isidore (q.v.) of Seville, and St. Bede (q.v.). During the period of uncertainty regarding which of the translations to prefer, there occurred not a few textual corruptions. In addition to the errors inevitably introduced in a text copied so frequently, there were reciprocal contaminations, so that a reading from an ancient version penetrated the new one or vice versa. The phenomenon was already noted in antiquity; attempts were made to remedy it by means of more or less careful revisions. Since there were many such attempts, there arose the various types of manuscripts, which for practical convenience and also in accordance with 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 cent.) in his monastery at Vivarium and from the recensio of Alcuin. Some Spanish codices show the influence of the recensio of Theodulf (9th cent.), while the Insular ones usually present a text widely diffused also in France with influences from the recensio of Alcuin (8th cent.), who carried out his work at the behest of Charlemagne. The cataloguing of the manuscripts, however, is often done more for practical necessity, following the predominant tendency, than for clear objective reasons. Not infrequently, indeed, the various types of text coexist in the same manuscript. The phenomenon was noted by the theologians of the 12th–13th centuries, who labored to produce a uniform and secure text. This was the age of the celebrated biblical correctors (q.v.), who were in a sense preceded by the revisions of St. Peter Damian (q.v.), St. Lanfranc (q.v.), St. Stephen Harding (q.v.), and Nicholas Maniacoria (q.v.). The most widely diffused text, both through manuscripts and through printing immediately after its invention, unfortunately was one of the least perfect, namely, that in use at the University of Paris, and hence called the “Parisian” or Biblia Parisiensis.

II. AUTHENTICITY OF THE V

Much has been discussed about the value and meaning of this decree, which has sometimes been interpreted in a rather ridiculous manner, as if the Council had substituted this version for the original texts, which some even went so far as to proclaim inspired. Now everyone admits—and it has even been officially declared—that the decree has no dogmatic value but is disciplinary in nature, and that it in no way detracts from the primacy of the original texts or from the importance of the ancient versions in other languages, nor even from those in Latin that preceded II. The Vulgate is granted only an extrinsic official recognition, which guarantees its authenticity and prescribes its practical use (cf. the letter from the Pontifical Biblical Commission to the bishops of Italy of 20 June 1941, § 2: AAS, 33 [1941], pp. 468-69).

Since the term “authentic” has its place in the legal and literary fields, the question arises as to what meaning should be attributed to it in this conciliar decision. From the context, however, it clearly appears that the intention was not to resolve a literary critical difficulty, e.g., regarding the author of the Vulgate, but solely to confer upon it the force to settle a controversy, that is, to serve as the authoritative text in a dispute, etc., and to be a genuine source of Revelation. This is juridical authenticity, by which the version is recognized as a document worthy of trust. Naturally, for a document to enjoy such a privilege, it must possess an indisputable intrinsic goodness. Juridical authenticity presupposes, in other words, literary authenticity. Since the Council expressly refers (Denz-U, 784) to questions of dogma and morals, it must be admitted that, at least in passages dealing with such matters, the Vulgate faithfully reproduces the sense of the original text. Even here, however, the version is not required to be perfectly and absolutely faithful in every detail; substantial identity of thought or a substantial similarity suffices. Scholars admit that a dogmatic text may be presented in a clearer form in the translation than in the original, or in a somewhat different expression. In itself, it is not incompatible that a passage of doctrinal value may be altered or entirely omitted in the version, since the same truth could be transmitted in another text or through another translation. If it is proven that a reading in the Vulgate (cf. John 8:25; 1 John 5:7) has no counterpart in the original, the text cannot be presented as a scriptural argument, though it retains its doctrinal value as an expression of a constant tradition. The Vulgate was indeed 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

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 base the Louvain edition of 1540, edited by John Henten, and collating some manuscripts, the commission prepared a decent text, but due to the Pope’s death and other reasons, the edition was not published. In 1569, St. Pius V convened a new commission, of which Cardinal Sirleto remained the guiding spirit; with the help of many scholars, he refined the previous work. Even then, however, the desired edition did not materialize. Therefore, in 1586, Sixtus V entrusted the task to Cardinal Carafa (v.) and another commission; after only two months, an excellent text (the Codex Carafianus) was presented to the Pope, which may be called the fruit of all previous labors. Sixtus V was surprised by some new readings and by the removal of numerous additions that had appeared in the carelessly circulated editions of the time. For this reason, he did not approve the text. He himself carried out a revision of the various proposed emendations, in practice reverting 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 1 March, on which much has been discussed, even erroneously, as if it contained a nonexistent argument against papal infallibility. Naturally, those who had labored so diligently to prepare a correct text viewed with regret the publication that disregarded the fruit of their efforts. After the death of Sixtus V (27 August 1590), they requested the abolition of the apostolic constitution and the prohibition of the sale of printed copies. To preserve the memory of the Pope, Cardinal Bellarmine proposed that a new corrected edition be prepared immediately for dissemination under the name of Sixtus V. pope, Gregory XIV, approved the initiative, appointing a commission of seven cardinals and eleven consultors under the presidency of Cardinal Marcantonio Colonna. The guiding principles in practice amounted to a return to the Codex Carafianus, but with the recommendation that no changes be made unless absolutely necessary (*ne fieret mutatio, nisi cogeret necessitas*). The commission was established on 7 February 1591, and after a few months delivered the text to the Pope, who, however, died on 15 October of that year. His successor, Clement VIII, ordered the final touches. Finally, on 9 November 1592, the *Biblia Sacra Vulgatae editionis Sixti Quinti Pont. Max. iussu recognita atque edita* was published, while efforts were made to collect and destroy the copies issued in 1590. Only in the Lyon edition of 1604 was the name of Clement VIII added to that of Sixtus V. For this reason, it is referred to as the Sixtine-Clementine edition, though very little of the work of the first of these two popes remained in II. And if any reproach is to be made to the revisers of Clement VIII, it is precisely that they did not entirely repudiate the text of the previous edition in order to return to the excellent Codex Carafianus. In particular, they retained too many readings that had already been eliminated by the 1586 commission.

In the following centuries, certain scholars (Francis Lucas of Bruges, Carlo Vercellone) collected a good number of variants 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 complete (the last fascicle, containing the Catholic Epistles, was issued in 1949), lacking the Apocalypse; but already in 1911, after Wordsworth’s death, H. J. White published a complete manual edition.

Only in 1907 did Pius X entrust the Benedictine Order with the task of preparing a critical edition; later Pius XI built for the monks of Clairvaux, who were assuming the honor, the abbey of St. Jerome of the Urbe. The purpose of this initiative is not to offer a new authentic version of Scripture nor to correct the Latin text to make it more conformable to the originals, but solely to provide an edition, as far as possible, identical to that which came from the pen of St. Jerome and 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 Vulgate to determine the “typical” texts that form the basis of the critical edition. After a period of preparation under the guidance of A. Gasquet and A. Amelli, 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, covering the books Genesis–Psalms. The work has met with the approval of critics, though some observations and dissent have not been lacking regarding the value assigned to certain codices, especially with regard to the first books of the Pentateuch.

IV. Codices

Among the “Italian” codices the Amiatine (siglum A), so called from Monte Amiata where it was long preserved, holds a place of honor. It is usually considered the most valuable manuscript, though 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 Abbot Ceolfrid, who sent it to Rome as a gift to the Pope. Since its bearer died during the journey, the manuscript ended up in the Cistercian monastery of Monte Amiata; it is now in the Laurentian Library in Florence. It was already collated by the commission of Pius IV and has been the object of study, especially by the critic C. Tischendorf. The Benedictine monks assigned it a place of first rank as representative of the great family of “Italian” codices; for the book of Tobit, however, it has been relegated behind other manuscripts. The codex Fuldensis (siglum F), now in Fulda, Germany, was produced by Bishop Victor of Capua (d. 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 (q.v.). The codex Foroiuliensis (siglum F) of the 6th–8th centuries contains the Gospels with some lacunae in that of St. John. It is largely preserved in the Civic Library of Cividale del Friuli, while some leaves are in Prague and others in Venice. The Lindisfarnensis (siglum Y) of the 7th–8th centuries, preserved 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 Amiatine. The Paulinus (siglum P) of the 9th century is one of the most elegant codices in the Library of St. Paul in Rome. It is also one of the most reliable witnesses to the Alcuinian recension. The Vallicellianus (siglum V) of the 9th century in the Vallicelliana Library in Rome presents the same characteristics, except for its artistic beauty.

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 from the Old Latin version, is a clear document of the easy reciprocal contamination among the various translations. The Turonensis (siglum G), now in the National Library in Paris, of the 6th–7th century, contains part of the Pentateuch (Genesis–Numbers). It may be considered the archetype of the Spanish codices: this explains the use made of it by the Benedictine editors. The Vatican-Guelferbytanus (siglum V) is a palimpsest of the 5th century, containing only a large part of the book of Judith and fragments of Ruth and Job. The Theodulphianus (siglum O), also called Mesimanus from the family that once 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 the following should be noted: the Lichfeldensis (siglum L), in Lichfield, England, of the 7th–8th century, containing only Mt 1:1, Lk 3:9; the Dublinensis (siglum D), also called the 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 a typical representative by the Benedictine editors. It contains the Epistle to the Hebrews with some original readings or from the Vetus Latina. It was probably written at Bobbio in the 8th–9th century. — See pl. CLIV.