the Fourth Week of Advent
Click here to join the effort!
Bible Encyclopedias
Vulgate
Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
or is the popular and convenient designation of the common Latin version of the Bible, usually attributed to Jerome. Its great importance in the history of the Christian Church justifies an unusual degree of fullness in its treatment. (See VERNONS).
I. Origin and History of the Name. — 1. The name "Vulgate," which is equivalent to Vulgata editio (the current text of Holy Scripture), has necessarily been used differently in various ages of the Church. There can be no doubt that the phrase originally answered to the κοινὴ ἔκδοσις of the Greek Scriptures. In this sense it is used constantly by Jerome in his commentaries, and his language explains sufficiently the origin of the term: "Hoc juxta LXX interpretes diximus, quorum editio tofo orbe vulcgta est" (Hieron. Comm. in Isaiah 65:20). "Multum in hoc loco LXX editio Hebraicumque discordant. Primum ergo de Yulgata editione tractabimus et postea sequemur ordinem veritatis" (ibid. Isaiah 30:22). In some places Jerome distinctly quotes the Greek text: "Porro in editione Vulgata dupliciter legimus; quidam enim codices habent δῆλοί εἰσιν, hoc est manifesti sunt: alii δειλαῖοί εἰσιν, hoe est meticulosi sive miseri sunt" (Comm. in Osee, 7:13; comp. 8-11 etc.). But generally he regards the Old Latin, which was rendered from the Sept., as substantially identical with it, and thus introduces Latin quotations under the name of the Sept. or Vulgata, editio: "Miror quomodo vulgata editio . . . testimonium alia interpretatione subverterit: Congregabor et glorificabor coram Domino. . . Illud autem quod in LXX legitur: Congregabor et glorificabor coram Domino . . ." (Comm. in Isaiah 49:5). So again: "Philistheos . . . alienigenas Vulgata scribit editio" (ibid. 14:29). "Palsestinis quos indifferenter LXX alienigenas vocant" (Comm. in Ezekiel 16:27). In this way the transference of the name from the current Greek text to the current Latin text became easy and natural; but there does not appear to be any instance in the age of Jerome of the application of the term to the, Latin version of the Old Test. without regard to its derivation from the Sept., or to that of the New Test.
2. Yet more, as the, phrase κοινὴ ἔκδοσις , came to signify an uncorrected (and so corrupt) text, the same secondary meaning was attached to vulgata editio. Thus in some places the vulgata editio stands in contrast with the true Hexaplaric text of the Sept. One passage will place this in the clearest light: "Breviter admoneo aliam esse editionem quam Origenes et Caesariensis Eusebius, omnesque Grecise translatores κοινήν, id est, communem, appellant, atque vulgatam, et a plerisque nunc Λουκιανός dicitur; aliam LXX interpretum que, in ἑξαπλοῖς codicibus reperitur, et a nobis ip Latinum sermonem fideliter versa est Κοινή autem ista, hoc est, Communis editio, ipsa est qume et LXX, sed hoc interest inter utramque; quod κοινή pro locis et temporibus et pro voluntate scriptorum vetus corrupta editio est; ea autem quae habetur in ἑξαπλοῖς et quam nos vertimus, ipsa est quae in eruditorum libris incorrupta et immaculata LXX interpretum translatio reservatur" (Ep. 106, ad Sun. et Feret. § 2).
3. This use of the phrase Vulgata editio to describe the Sept. (and the Latin version of the latter) was continued to later times. It is supported by the authority of Augustine, Ado of Vienne. (A.D. 860), R. Bacon, etc.; and B1ellarmine distinctly recognizes tile application of the term, so that Van Ess is justified in saying that the Council of Trent erred in a point of history when they described Jerome's version as "vetus et vulgata editio, quae longo tot seculorum usu in ipsa ecclesia probata est" (Gesch. p. 34). As a general rule, the Latin fathers speak of Jerome's version as "our" version. (nostra editio, nostri codices); but it was not unnatural that the Tridentine fathers (as many later scholars) should be misled by the associations of their own time, and adapt to new circumstances terms which had grown obsolete in their original sense. When the difference of the (Greek) Vulgate of the early Church and the (Latin) Vulgate of the modern Roman Church has once been apprehended, no further difficulty need arise from the identity of name (comp. Augustine, ed. Benedict. [Paris, 1836], 5, 33; Sabatier, 1, 792; Van Ess, Gesch. p. 24-42, who gives very full and conclusive references, though he fails to perceive that the Old Latin was practically identified with the Sept.).
II. The Old Latin Versions. —
1. Origin. — The history of the earliest Latin version of the Bible is lost in complete obscurity. All that can be affirmed with certainty is that it was made in Africa. During the first two centuries the Church of Rome, to which we naturally look for the source of, the version now identified with it, was essentially Greek. The Roman bishops bear Greek names; the earliest Roman liturgy was Greek; the few remains of the Christian literature of Rome are Greek. The same remark holds true of Gaul (comp. Westcott, Hist. of Canon of N.T. p. 269, 270, and ref.); but the Church of North Africa seems to have been Latin speaking from the first. At what date this Church was founded is uncertain. A passage of Augustine (Cont. Donat. Ep. 27) seems to imply that Africa was converted late; but if so the Gospel spread there with remarkable rapidity. At the end of the 2nd century, Christians were found in every rank and in every place; and the master-spirit of Tertullian, the first of the Latin fathers, was then raised up to give utterance to the passionate thoughts of his native Church. This Church father distinctly recognizes the general currency of a Latin version of the New Test., though not necessarily of every book at present included in the canon, which even in his time had been able to mould the popular language (Adv. Prax. 5 "In usu est nostrorum per simplicitatem interpretationis." De Honog. 11 "Sociamus plane non sic esse in Grseco authentico quomodo in usum exiit per duarum syllabarum aut callidam aut simplicem eversionem"). This was characterized by a "rudeness" and "simplicity" which seem to point to the nature of its origin. In the words of Augustine (De Doctr. Christ. 2, 16 [11]), "any one in the first ages of Christianity who gained possession of a Greek MS., anti fancied that lie had a fair knowledge of Greek and Latin, ventured to, translate it" ("Qui scripturas ex Hebraea lingua in Graecam verterunt numerari possunt, Latini antem interpretes nullo, modo, Ut enim cuivii primis fidei temporibus in manus venit codex Grecus et aliquantulum facultatis sibi utriusque linguve habers videbatur, aunsus est interpretari"). Thus the version of the New Test. appears to have arisen from individual and successive efforts; but it does not follow, by any means, that numerous versions were simultaneously circulated, or that the several parts of the version were made independently. Even if it had been so, the exigencies of the public service must soon have given definiteness and substantial unity to the fragmentary labors of individuals. The work of private hands would necessarily be subject to revision for ecclesiastical use. The separate, books would be united in a volume, and thus a standard text of the whole collection would be established. With regard to the Old Test., the case is less clear. It is probable that the Jews who were settled in North Africa were confined to the Greek towns; otherwise it might be supposed that the Latin version of the Old Test. is in part anterior to the Christian era, and that (as in the case of Greek) a preparation for a Christian Latin dialect was already made when the Gospel was introduced into Africa. However this may have been, the substantial similarity of the different parts of the Old and New Test. establishes a real connection between them, and justifies the belief that there was one popular Latin version of the Bible current in Africa in the last quarter of the 2nd century. Many words which are either Greek (machlera, sophia, perizoma, poderis, agonizo, etc.) or literal translations of Greek forms (vivifico, justifico, etc.) abound in both, and explain what Tertullini meant when he spoke of the "simplicity" of the translation.
2. Character. — The exact literality of the Old version was not confined to the most minute observance of order and the accurate reflection of the words of the original; in many cases the very forms of Greek construction were retained in violation of Latin usage. A few examples of these singular anomalies will convey, a better idea of the absolute certainty with which, the Latin commonly indicates the text that the translator had before him than any general statements:
Matthew 4:13, "habitavit in Capharnlanm mdaritimnam." 4:15, "terra Neptalim vianss maris." 25, "ab Jerosolymis... et tranns Jordanem." Matthew 5:22, "reus erit in gehennam iagis." Matthew 6:19, "ubi timnea et comtestura exterminat." Mark 12:31, "majus hortum praeceptorum, aliud non est." Luke 10:19, "nihil vos nocebit." Acts 19:26, "non solnm Eplhesi sed pmane totius Awe." Romans 2:15, "inter se cagitatioint accusantium veletiam defendentim." 1 Corinthians 7:32, "sollhaitus est quae sunt Domini." It is obvious that there was a constant tendency to alter expressions like these, and in the first age of the version it is not improbable that the continual Grecism which marks the Latin texts of DI (Cod. Bezae) and E2 (Cod. Laud.) had a wider currency than it could maintain afterwards.
3. Canon. — With regard to the African canon of the New Test., the Old version offers important evidence, From considerations of style and language, it seems certain that the Epistle to the Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter did not form part of the original African version, a conclusion which falls in with what is derived from historical testimony (comp. The Hist. of the Canon of the N.T. p. 282 sq.). In the Old Test., on the other hand, the Old Latin erred by excess, and not by defect; for, as the version was made from the current copies of the Sept., it included the Apocryphal books which are commonly contained in them, and to these 2 Esdras was early added.
4. Revision. — After the translation once received a definite shape in Africa, which could not have been long after the middle of the 2nd century, it was not publicly revised. The old text was jealously guarded by ecclesiastical use, and was retained there at a time when Jerome's version was elsewhere almost universally received. The well-known story of the disturbance caused by the attempt of an African bishop to introduce Jerome's cucurbita for the old hedera in the history of Jonah (August E. 104, ap. Hieron. Epp. quoted by Tregelles, Introduction, p. 242) shows how carefully intentional changes were avoided. But, at the same time, the text suffered by the natural corruptions of copying, especially by interpolations, a form of error to which the gospels were particularly exposed. In the Old Test. the version was made from the unrevised edition of the Sept., and thus from the first included many false readings, of which Jerome often notices instances (e.g. Esp. 104, ad Sun. et Fret.).
The Latin translator of Irenaeus was probably contemporary with Tertullian, and his renderings of the quotations from Scripture confirm the conclusions which have been already drawn as to the currency of (substantially) one Latin version. It does not appear that he had a Latin MS. before him during the execution of his work, but he was so familiar with the common translation that he reproduces continually characteristic phrases which he cannot be supposed to have derived from any other source (Lachmann, N.T. 1, p. 10:11). Cyprian (died A.D. 257) carries on the chain of testimony far through the next century; and he is followed by Lactantius, Juvencus, J. Firmicus Maternus, Hilary the Deacon (Ambrosiaster), Hilaryvof Poitiers (died A.D. 449), and Lucifer of Cagliari (died A.D. 370). Ambrose and Augustine exhibit a peculiar recension of the same text, and Jerome offers some traces of it. From this date MSS. of parts of the African text have been preserved and it is unnecessary to trace the history of its transmission to a later time.
But while the earliest Latin version was preserved generally unchanged in North Africa, it fared differently in Italy. There the provincial rudeness of the version was necessarily more offensive, and the comparative familiarity of the leading bishops with the Greek texts made a revision at once more feasible and less, startling to their congregations. Thus, in the 4th century, a definite ecclesiastical recension (of the gospels, at least) appears to have been made in North Italy by reference to the Greek, which was distinguished by the name of Itala. This Augustine recommends on the ground of its close accuracy and its perspicuity (De Doctmr Christ. 15, "In ipsis interpretationibus Itala cueteris preferatur, nam est verborum tenacior cum perspicuitate sententiae"), and the text of the gospels which he follows is marked by the latter characteristic when compared with the African. In the other books the difference cannot be traced with accuracy; and it has not yet been accurately determined whether other nation — all recensions may not have existed (as seems certain from the evidence which scholars have recently collected) in Ireland (Britain), Gaul, and Spain.
The Itala appears to have been made in some degree with authority; other revisions were made for private use, in which such changes were introduced as suited the taste of scribe or critic. The next, stage in the deterioration of the text was the intermixture of these various revisions; so that at the close of the 4th century the gospels were in such a state as to call for that final recension which was made by Jerome.
5. Remains. — It will be seen that, for the chief part of the Old Test. and for considerable parts of the New Test. (e.g. Apoc. Acts), the old text rests upon early quotations (principally Tertullian, Cyprian, Lucifer of Cagliari for the African text, Ambrose and Augustine for the Italic). These were collected by Sabatier with great diligence up to the date of his work; but more recent discoveries (e.g. of the Roman Speculum) have a furnished a large store of new materials which have not yet been fully employed. (The great work of Sabatier, already often referred to, is still the standard work on the Latin versions. His great fault is his neglect to distinguish the different types of text — African, Italic, British, Gallic a task which yet remains to be done. The earliest work on the subject was by Flaminius Nobilius. Vetus Test. Sec. LXX Latine Redditum, etc. [Rom., 1588]. The new collations made by Tischendorf, Maiai Miinter, Ceriani, have been noticed separately.) (See ITALIC VERSION).
III. Labors of Jerome. —
1. Occasion. — It has been seen that at the close of the 4th century the Latin texts of the Bible current in the Western Church had fallen into the greatest corruption. The evil was yet greater in prospect than at the time; for the separation of the East and West, politically and ecclesiastically, was growing imminent, and the fear of the perpetuation of false and conflicting Latin copies proportionately greater. But in the crisis of danger the great scholar was raised up who, probably alone for fifteen hundred years, possessed the qualifications necessary for producing an original version of the Scriptures for the use of the Latin churches. Jerome-Eusebius Hieronymus was born in A.D. 329 at Stridon, in Dalmatia, and died .at Bethlehem in A.D. 420. From his early youth he was a vigorous student, and age removed nothing from his zeal. He has been well called the Western Origen (Hody, p. 350); and if he wanted the largeness of heart and generous sympathies of the great Alexandrian, he had more chastened critical skill and closer concentration of power. After long and self-denying studies in the East and West, Jerome went to Rome (A.D. 382), probably at the request of Damasus the pope, to assist in an important synod (Ep. 108, 6), where he seems to have been at once attached to the service of the pope (ibid. 123; 10). His active Biblical labors date from this epoch, and in examining them it will be convenient to follow the order of time.
2. Revision of the Old Latin Version of the N.T. Jerome had not been long at Rome (A.D. 383) when Damasus consulted him on points of scriptural criticism (Ep. 19 "Dilectionis tuse est ut ardenti illo strenuitatis ingenio… vivo sensu scribas"). The answers which he received (Ep. 20:21) may well have encouraged him to seek for greater services; and, apparently in the same year he applied to Jerome for a revision of the current Latin version of the New Test. by the help of the Greek original. Jerome was fully sensible of the prejudices which such a work would excite among those "who thought that ignorance was holiness" (Ep. ad Marc. 27); but the need of it was urgent. "There were," he says, "almost as many forms of text as copies" ("tot sunt exemplaria paene quot codices" [Pre; in Ev.]). Mistakes had been introduced "by false transcription, by clumsy corrections, and by careless interpolations" (ibid.); and in the confusion which had ensued the one remedy was to go back to the original sourced ("Graeca veritas, Graeca origo"). The gospels had naturally suffered most. Thoughtless scribes inserted additional details in the narrative from the parallels, and changed the forms of expression to those with which they had originally been familiarized (ibid.). Jerome therefore applied himself to these first ("hec praesens praefatiuncula pollicetur quatuor tantum Evangelia"). But his aim was to revise the Old Latin, and not to make a new version. When Augustine expressed to him his gratitude for "his translation of the Gospel" (Ep. 104, 6, "Non parvas Deo gratias agimus de opere tuo quo Evangelitim ex Greco interpretatus es"), he tacitly corrected him by substituting for this phrase "the correction of the New Test." (ibid. 112, 20, "Si me, ut dicis, in N.T. emendationaze suscipis.... For this purpose he collated early Greek MSS., and preserved the current rendering wherever the sense was not injured by it ("Evangelia… codicum Grsecorum emendata collatione sed veterum. Qum ne nmultum a lectionis. — Latina, consuetudille discreparent, ita calamo temperavimus [all. imperavimus] ut his tantum quse sensum videbantur mutare, correctis, reliqua manere pateremur ut fuerant" [Praef. ad Dan.]). Yet although he proposed to himself this limited object, the various forms of corruption which had been introduced were, as he describes, so numerous that the difference of the Old and Revised (Hieronymian) text is throughout clear and striking. Thus, in Matthew 5 we have the following variations:
| OLD LATIN | VULGATE |
| 7 ipsis miserebitur Deus. | 7 ipsi miscricordiam consequentur. |
| 11 dixerint… | 11 dixerint… mentientes. |
| - - propterjustitiam. | - - propter me. |
| 12 ante vos patres eorum (Luke 6:26). | 12 ante vos. |
| 17 non veni solvere legem aut prophetas. | 17 non veni solvere |
| 18 fiant: coelum et terra transibunt, verba autem mea non proeteribunt. | 18 fiant. |
| 22 fratri sno sine causa. | 22 fratri sno. |
| 25 es cum illo in ira. | 25 es in via cum eo (and often). |
| 29 eat in gehenuam. | 29 mittatur in gehenuam. |
| 37 quod autem amplius. | 37 quod autem his abundantius. |
| 41 adhue alia duo. | 41 et alia duo. |
| 43 odies. | 43 odio habebis. |
| 44 vestros, et benedicite qui maledicent vobis et benefacite. | 44 vestros benefacite. |
Of these variations, those in Luke 6:17; Luke 6:44 are only partially supported by the old copies, but they illustrate the character of the interpolations from which the text suffered. In John, as might be expected, the variations are less frequent. The 6th chapter contains only the following:
| OLD LATIN | VULGATE |
| 2 sequebatur autem. | 2 et sequebatur. |
| 21 (volebant). | 21 (voluerunt). |
| 23 quem benedixerat Dominnns[alii aliter]). | 23 (gratias agente Domino) |
| 39 haec est enim. | 39 haec est autem. |
| - - (patris mei). | - - (Patris mei qui misit me). |
| 53 (manducare). | 53 (ad manducandum). |
| 66 (a patre). | 66 (a patre meo). |
| 67 ex hoc ergo. | 67 ex hoc. |
Some of the changes which Jerome introduced were, as will be seen, made purely on linguistic grounds, but it is impossible to ascertain on what principle he proceeded in this respect. Others involved questions of interpretation (Matthew 6:11, supersubstantials for ἐπιού σιος ). But the greater number consisted in the removal of the interpolations by which the synoptic gospels especially were disfigured. These interpolations, unless his description is very much exaggerated, must have been far more numerous than are found in existing copies; but examples still occur which show the important service which he rendered to the Church by checking the perpetuation of apocryphal glosses: Matthew 3:3; Matthew 3:15 (5:12); (9:21); 20:28; (24:36).; Mark 1:3; Mark 1:7-8; Mark 4:19; Mark 16:4; Luke (Luke 5:10); 8:48; 9:43, 50; 11:36; 12:38; 23:48; John 6:56. As a check upon further interpolation, he inserted in his text the: notation of the Eusebian Canons (See NEW TESTAMENT); but it is worthy of notice that he included in his revision the famous pericope, John 7:53; John 8:11, which is not included in that analysis.
The preface to Damasus speaks only of a revision of the gospels, and a question has been raised whether Jerome really revised the remaining books of the New Test. Augustine (A.D. 403) speaks only of "the Gospel" (Ep. 104, 6, quoted above), and there is no preface to any other books, such as is elsewhere found before all Jerome's versions or editions. But the omission is probably due to the comparatively pure state in which the text of the rest of the New Test. was preserved. Damasus had requested (Preaf. ad Dam.) a revision of the whole; and when Jerome had faced the more invidious and difficult part of his work, there is no reason to think that he would shrink from the completion of it. In accordance with this view he enumerates. (A.D. 398) among his works "the restoration of the (Latin version of the) New Test. to harmony with the original Greek." (Ep. ad Lucin. 71, 5: "N.T. Grecam reddidi auctoritati, ut enim Veterum Librorum fides de Hebreis voluminibus examinanda est, ita novorum Grecae [?] sermonis normam desiderat." De Vir. 111. 135. "N.T. Grecae fidei reddidi. Vetus juxta Hebraicam traistuli.") It is yet more directly conclusive as to the fact of this revision that in writing to Marcella (cir. A.D. 385) on the charges which had been brought against him for "introducing changes in the gospels," he quotes three passages from the epistles in which he asserts the superiority of the present Vulgate reading to that of tie Old Latin (Romans 12:11, "Domino servientes," for "tempori servientes;" 1 rim. 5, 19, add. "nisi sub duobus.aut tribus testibus;" 1, 15, "fidelis sermo," for "humanus sermo"). An examination of the Vulgate text, with the quotations of ante-Hieronymian fathers and the imperfect evidence of MSS., is itself sufficient to establish the reality and character of the revision. This will be apparent from a collation of a few chapters taken from several of the later books of the New Test.; but it will also be obvious that the revision was hasty and imperfect; and in later times the line between the Old Latin and the Hieronymian texts became very indistinct. Old readings appear in MSS. of the Vulgate, and, on the other hand, no MS. represents a pure African text of the Acts and epistles. —
Acts 1:4-25
| OLD LATIN | |
| 4 cum conversaretur cum illis… quod audistis a me. | 4 convescens… quam andistis per os meum. |
| 5 tingemini. | 5 baptizabbimini. |
| 6 at illi convenientes. | 6 Igitur qui convenerant. |
| 7 at ille respondens dixit. | 7 Dixit autem. |
| 8 superveniente S. S. | 8 supervenientis S. S. |
| 10 intenderent. Comp. 3(4):12; 6:15; 10:4; (13:9). | 10 intuerentur. |
| 13 ascenderunt in superiora. | 13 in coenaculum ascenderunt. |
| - - erant habitantes. | - - manebant. |
| 14 perseverantes unanimes orationi. | 14 persev. Unanimiter in oratione. |
| 18 Hie-igitur adquisivit. | 18 Et hic quidem possedit. |
| 21 qui convenerunt nobiscum viris. | 21 viris qui nobiscum sunt congregati. |
| 25 ire. Comp. 17:30. | 25 ut abiret. |
Acts 17:16-34
| 16 circa simulacrum. | 16 idololatrice deditam. |
| 17 Judaeis. | 17 cum Judaeis. |
| 18 seminator. | 18 seminiverbius. |
| 22 superstitiosos. | 22 superstitiosiores. |
| 23 perambulans. | 23 proeterienns. |
| - - culturas vestras. | - - simulacra vestra. |
| 26 ex uno sanguine. | 26 ex uno. |
Romans 1:13-15
| 13 Non autem arbitror. | 13 nolo antem. |
| 15 quod in me est promptus sum. | 15 quod in me promptum est. |
1 Corinthians 10:4-29
| 4 sequenti se (sequenti, q) (Cod. Aur. f ). | 4 consequente eos. |
| 6 in figuram. | 6 in figura (f) (g). |
| 7 idolorum cultores (g corr.) efficiamur. | 7 idololatrae (idolatres, f) efficiamini (f). |
| 12 putat (g. corr.). | 12 existimat (f). |
| 15 sicut prudentes, vobis dico. | 15 ut 9sicut, f, g) prudentibus loquor (dico, f, g). |
| 16 quem (f, g). | 16 cui. |
| - - communicatio (alt.) (f,g). | - - participatio. |
| 21 participare (f, g). | 21 participes esse. |
| 29 infideli (g). | 29 (aliena); alia (f). |
2 Corinthians 3:11-18
| 14 dum (quod g corr.) non revelatur (g corr.). | 14 non revelatum (f). |
| 18 de (a g) gloria in gloriam (g). | 18 a claritate in claritatem. |
Galatians 3:14-25
| 14 benedictionem (g). | 14 pollicitationem (f). |
| 15 irritum facit (irritat, g). | 15 spernit (f). |
| 25 veniente autem fide (g). | 25 At ubi venit fides (f). |
Philippians 2:2-30
| 2 unum (g). | 2 idipsum (f). |
| 6 cum… constitutus (g). | 6 cum… esset (f). |
| 12 dilectissimi (g). | 12 carissimi (f). |
| 26 sollicitus (taedebatur, g). | 26 maestus (f). |
| 28 sollicitus itaque. | 28 festinantius ergo (fest. ego, f: fest. autem, g). |
| 30 parabolatus de anima sua (g). | 30 tradens animam suam (f). |
1 Timothy 3:1-12
| 1 Humanus (g corr.). | 1 fidelis (f). |
| 2 doeibilem (g). | 2 doctorem (f). |
| 4 habentem in obsequio. | 4 habentem subbditos (f,g). |
| 8 turpilucros. | 8 turpe lucrum sectantes (f) (turpil, s.g). |
| 12 filios bene vegentes (g corr.). | 12 qui filiis suis bene proesint (f). |
3. Revision of the Old Test. from the Sept. — About the same time (cir. A.D. 383) at which he was engaged on the revision of the New Test., Jerome undertook also a first revision of the Psalter. ‘ This he made by the help of the Greek, but the work was not very complete or careful, and the words in which he describes it may, perhaps, be extended without injustice to the revision of the later books of the New Test.: "Psalterium Romae emendaram et julxta LXX interpretes, licet cursin magna illad ex parte correxeram" (Praf in Lib. Psalm). This revision obtained the name of the Roman Psalter, probably because it was made fir the use of the Roman Church at the request of Damasus, where it was retained till the pontificate of Pius V (A.D. 1566), who introduced the Galician Psalter generally, though the Roman Psalter was still retained in three Italian churches (Hody, p. 383, "nin una Rome Vaticana ecclesia, et extraurbem in Mediolanensi et in ecclesia S. Marci, Venetils"). In a short time "the old error prevailed over the new correction," and, at the urgent request of Paula and Eustochius, Jerome commenced a new and more thorough revision (Gallican Psalter). The exact date at which this was made is not known, but it may be fixed with great probability very shortly after A.D. 387, when he retired to Bethlehem, and certainly before 391, when he had begun his new translations from the Hebrew. In the new revision Jerome
These files are public domain.
McClintock, John. Strong, James. Entry for 'Vulgate'. Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature. https://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/eng/tce/v/vulgate.html. Harper & Brothers. New York. 1870.
