Why Vulgate doesn't have Matt 23:14?

[abcdefg]

DRB, KJV, ISV, GLB(German Luther Bible) all have it which reads (DRB)

Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour the houses of widows, praying long prayers. For this you shall receive the greater judgment.

CUV, which is always very curious looking, has it but says it only exists in an old version

but Vulgate doesn’t have it.

 

[Verbum]

Hi ABC,

Modern critical editions of the New Testament have determined that this passage was not in the original Gospel of Matthew. It was probably slipped into the manucripts Jerome was using by copyists who were influenced by Marc 12,40 and Luke 20,47.

Does this bother you?

Verbum

 

[abcdefg]

Thanks Verbum

 

[Edward_Pothier]

Verbum:

Hi ABC,

Modern critical editions of the New Testament have determined that this passage was not in the original Gospel of Matthew. It was probably slipped into the manucripts Jerome was using by copyists who were influenced by Marc 12,40 and Luke 20,47.

Does this bother you?

Verbum

The initiating post of this thread by abcdefg claimed that the Vulgate didn’t contain Matt 23:14. Older editions such as the Sixto-Clementine version did include it, hence the Douay-Rheims inclusion of it also. The Nova Vulgata, however, agrees with the critical Greek editions (Nestle-Aland and UBS) in omitting it, and almost all modern translations are based on these Greek editions as well.

[14]
Some manuscripts add a verse here or after

Matthew 23:12 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You devour the houses of widows and, as a pretext, recite lengthy prayers. Because of this, you will receive a very severe condemnation.” Cf Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47. This “woe” is almost identical with Mark 12:40 and seems to be an interpolation derived from that text.

Edward Pothier

 

[Leonius]

It is only since 1979 and the publication of the new vulgate that this has been omitted, it is in the previous vulgate, as for it not being in the original gospel I would think that Catholics in the 4th century would be a better judge of that than the arrogant modern scholars who do not even have a copy of the original and yet 2000 years later tell us as if it is a proven fact that a passage was not contained in it.

I will take the fact that the early church fathers referred to it and that the passage was contained in the original scriptures compiled by the Church over the modern scholars opinions personally. Would that the Church of the 1970’s had a bit more faith in her successors and a bit less faith in modern man.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The Council of Trent:
“But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.”

Now a verse is certainly a part of a book of Sacred Scripture. Therefore, the modern practice of dropping entire verses from Scripture based on the jugdment of scholars is directly contrary to centuries of witness by the Living Tradition, and directly contrary to this infallible decree from an Ecumenical Council.

The temporal authority of the Church errs by permitting verses to be dropped from the Bible when those verses are found in the old Latin vulgate editions.