Do we still have the original Latin Vulgate translated by St. Jerome?

[Holly3278]

Hi everyone. Do we still have the original Latin Vulgate that was translated by St. Jerome?

 

[patrick457]

Hi everyone. Do we still have the original Latin Vulgate that was translated by St. Jerome?

In a sense, unfortunately no.

For one thing, the situation with the Latin Vulgate is quite similar to that of the Greek New Testament: first and foremost of all, we don’t have the original autographs penned by St. Jerome. Among the earliest manuscripts we have testifying to the text are Codex Fuldensis, dating between 541 and 546 (which actually has the four gospels combined into one narrative, a la the Diatessaron) and the Codex Amiatinus (ca. 716), the earliest complete copy we have.

We’ll also need to consider human errors (misspellings, omissions, additions, etc.) and well-intentioned ‘corrections’ and accidents along the way: marginal notes were sometimes erroneously interpolated into the text and at other times, readings from Vetus Latina translations were introduced into the text. Just like the Greek New Testament manuscripts, the Vulgate text has evolved into various text-types. To quote from this article (well worth a read):

The best “local” text is considered to be the Italian type, as represented e.g. by am and ful. This text also endured for a long time in England (indeed, Wordsworth and White call this group “Northumbrian”). It has formed the basis for most recent Vulgate revisions.

Believed to be as old as the Italian, but less reputable, is the Spanish text-type, represented by cav and tol. Jerome himself is said to have supervised the work of the first Spanish scribes to copy the Vulgate (398), but by the time of our earliest manuscripts the type had developed many peculiarities (some of them perhaps under the influence of the Priscillians, who for instance produced the “three heavenly witnesses” text of 1 John 5:7-8).

The Irish text is marked by beautiful manuscripts (the Book of Kells and the Lichfield Gospels, both beautiful illuminated manuscripts, are of this type, and even unilliminated manuscripts such as the Rushworth Gospels and the Book of Armagh are beautiful examples of calligraphy). Sadly, these manuscripts are often marred by conflations and inversions of word order. Some of the manuscripts are thought to have been corrected from the Greek – though the number of Greek scholars in the Celtic church must have been few indeed. Lemuel J. Hopkins-James, editor of The Celtic Gospels (essentially a critical edition of codex Lichfeldensis) offers another theory: that this sort of text (which he calls “Celtic” rather than Irish) is descended not from a pure Vulgate manuscript but from an Old Latin source corrected against a Vulgate. (It should be noted, however, that Hopkins-James tries to use statistical comparisons to support this result, and the best word I can think of for his method is “ludicrous.”)

The “French” text has been described as a mixture of Spanish and Irish readings. The text of Gaul (France) has been called “unquestionably” the worst of the local texts.

Here’s an explication of the funny little letters:

Italian
am: (aka A) Codex Amiatinus
ful: (aka F) Codex Fuldensis

Spanish
cav: (aka C) Codex Cavensis, 9th century AD
tol: (aka T) Codex Toletanus, 8th century

In fact, throughout the ages, various people have attempted to ‘restore’ and reconstruct the Vulgate as it left St. Jerome’s pen: one of the earliest attempts to do so was conducted by Cassiodorus at around 550, just a little over a century after the translation was completed!

 

[Holly3278]

In a sense, unfortunately no.

For one thing, the situation with the Latin Vulgate is quite similar to that of the Greek New Testament: first and foremost of all, we don’t have the original autographs penned by St. Jerome. Among the earliest manuscripts we have testifying to the text are Codex Fuldensis, dating between 541 and 546 (which actually has the four gospels combined into one narrative, a la the Diatessaron) and the Codex Amiatinus (ca. 716), the earliest complete copy we have.

We’ll also need to consider human errors (misspellings, omissions, additions, etc.) and well-intentioned ‘corrections’ and accidents along the way: marginal notes were sometimes erroneously interpolated into the text and at other times, readings from Vetus Latina translations were introduced into the text. Just like the Greek New Testament manuscripts, the Vulgate text has evolved into various text-types. To quote from this article (well worth a read):
The best “local” text is considered to be the Italian type, as represented e.g. by am and ful. This text also endured for a long time in England (indeed, Wordsworth and White call this group “Northumbrian”). It has formed the basis for most recent Vulgate revisions.

Believed to be as old as the Italian, but less reputable, is the Spanish text-type, represented by cav and tol. Jerome himself is said to have supervised the work of the first Spanish scribes to copy the Vulgate (398), but by the time of our earliest manuscripts the type had developed many peculiarities (some of them perhaps under the influence of the Priscillians, who for instance produced the “three heavenly witnesses” text of 1 John 5:7-8).

The Irish text is marked by beautiful manuscripts (the Book of Kells and the Lichfield Gospels, both beautiful illuminated manuscripts, are of this type, and even unilliminated manuscripts such as the Rushworth Gospels and the Book of Armagh are beautiful examples of calligraphy). Sadly, these manuscripts are often marred by conflations and inversions of word order. Some of the manuscripts are thought to have been corrected from the Greek – though the number of Greek scholars in the Celtic church must have been few indeed. Lemuel J. Hopkins-James, editor of The Celtic Gospels (essentially a critical edition of codex Lichfeldensis) offers another theory: that this sort of text (which he calls “Celtic” rather than Irish) is descended not from a pure Vulgate manuscript but from an Old Latin source corrected against a Vulgate. (It should be noted, however, that Hopkins-James tries to use statistical comparisons to support this result, and the best word I can think of for his method is “ludicrous.”)

The “French” text has been described as a mixture of Spanish and Irish readings. The text of Gaul (France) has been called “unquestionably” the worst of the local texts.Here’s an explication of the funny little letters:
Italian
am: (aka A) Codex Amiatinus
ful: (aka F) Codex Fuldensis

Spanish
cav: (aka C) Codex Cavensis, 9th century AD
tol: (aka T) Codex Toletanus, 8th centuryIn fact, throughout the ages, various people have attempted to ‘restore’ and reconstruct the Vulgate as it left St. Jerome’s pen: one of the earliest attempts to do so was conducted by Cassiodorus at around 550, just a little over a century after the translation was completed!

Wow! This is some very interesting material that you have posted! Thank you so much!

I think I read somewhere a while back that there was going to be a new translation of the Latin Vulgate into modern English. Do you know anything about this?

 

[Ron_Conte]

Wow! This is some very interesting material that you have posted! Thank you so much!

I think I read somewhere a while back that there was going to be a new translation of the Latin Vulgate into modern English. Do you know anything about this?

I think you are referring to my translation, the Catholic Public Domain Version:
sacredbible.org/catholic/index.htm
which is a new translation of the Pope Sixtus V and Pope Clement VIII Latin Vulgate
into modern English. It is free online public domain, with no copyrights or othe restrictions.

The CPDV is a fairly literal translation made using the Challoner Douai version as a guide. The translation avoids the loose rephrasings and gender inclusive language that has plagued many recent translations. The OT is translated in the light of the NT, and both Testaments are translated in the light of Catholic teaching.