Augustine and Jerome wrote several epistles to one another. In these epistles, how did Augustine feel about Jerome producing the Latin Vulgate? What were his concerns?

In doing research primarily online, I have been seeing conflicting claims about how deuterocanonical books were inserted into the Vulgate by Jerome. * Some say that in the original manuscripts of the Vulgate, Jerome put the deuterocanonical books into their own section. * Other sources say that Jerome interspersed the deuterocanonical books and segments into the rest of the Bible, similar to (but maybe not exactly as) the Catholic Bible integrates them now. This question is **not** asking what Jerome's opinions were on the deuterocanonical texts or if he "approved" of the Apocrypha or anything like that. This question is **strictly about how the deuterocanonical texts were placed in the original Vulgate.** Thanks!

What is the Bible verse on how the the anticipation of an evil is often more fearsome than the evil itself?

In Acts 6:8, according to some manuscripts the Greek text states, >Στέφανος δὲ **πλήρης χάριτος** καὶ δυνάμεως ἐποίει τέρατα καὶ σημεῖα μεγάλα ἐν τῷ λαῷ. (NA28 ) which is translated by the NABRE into English as, >Now Stephen, **filled with grace** and power, was working great wonders and signs among the people. The Greek πλήρης χάριτος literally means "full of grace" (cp. John 1:14 ). In the Vulgate, St. Jerome translated that Greek phrase into Latin as *plenus gratia*, the equivalent of *gratia plena* in Luke 1:28, the only exception being *plenus* declined in the masculine gender referring to Stephen and *plena* being declined in the feminine gender referring to Mary (and the word order which is inconsequential). That being said, it is reasoned by Catholics that the virgin Mary was sinless because she is *gratia plena*, "full of grace." Can it be also said of Stephen that he, like Mary, was born without original sin and that he also never sinned, since he too is described as being *plenus gratia*? Why or why not?

The Catholic Church believes Peter to be the leader of the apostles. Also, by the time that [Pope Damasus I commissioned St. Jerome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Vulgate) with the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible (AD 382), the papacy was already firmly established. Why then St. Jerome placed the letters of St. Peter *after* James's letter among the catholic epistles (implying that James's letter is more important Peter's letters), not to mention placing the whole group of Paul's letters before the catholic epistles? Please note that I'm not making the assumption that order automatically implies importance (whether of the subject matter or of the author). For example, the reason why Matthew came before John was that the early church (including St. Augustine) [believed that the canonical order follows the order in which the 4 gospels were written](https://taylormarshall.com/2011/09/why-matthew-is-first-gospel-and-not.html) . Did the same reason apply to the ordering of the catholic epistles? **My question**: In the (presumed) absence of other deliberate ordering reason, why is it that James's letter was placed before Peter's letters among the catholic epistles?

To understand the history of the Christian church, the accessibility of Vulgate manuscripts during the middle ages is of interest. What is known? Is there a date from which we may assume that all, or most, Catholic parishes in Europe had such a manuscript?

I've been told that the Vetus Latina (Old Latin) translation of the New Testament is oldest edition/version of the New Testament texts available to the public. It seems some of the "originals" are either gone or buried away in inaccessible archives. Are there any Greek or other earlier copies or translations of the original New Testament source documents? While I understand that "all" of them may not be available, which ones are in their source language? My goal is to compile a copy for study of the earliest available material that is available for the New Testament either by piecemeal (scroll/document/book-by-book) or otherwise.

I want to check the conclusion I arrived at answering this related question. The English translation of the CCC lists the fruits of the Holy Spirit as (1832 ) > "charity, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, **generosity**, > gentleness, faithfulness, modesty, self-control, chastity." It cites only the Vulgate translation of Galatians 5:22-23. Yet the Vulgate does not list generosity at Gal. 5:22-23 . > "Fructus autem Spiritus est caritas, gaudium, pax, patientia, > benignitas, bonitas, **longanimitas**, mansuetudo, fides, modestia, > continentia, castitas." Instead, it lists 'longanimitas' where 'generosity' is listed in the CCC. Similarly, the Douay-Rheims translation, based on the Vulgate, does not list 'generosity' at Galatians 5:22-23 but instead, if correlates are taken as ordered, 'longanimity'. > "But the fruit of the Spirit is, charity, joy, peace, patience, > benignity, goodness, longanimity, Mildness, faith, modesty, > continency, chastity." It seems the Catechism translators mistakenly put 'generosity' where it should be 'longanimity'. The Catechism was originally written in French. The French version does not include a correlate to 'generosity' but does include one for 'longanimity'. Similarly, the Latin translation , which is now the standard translation, is identical to the Vulgate list above. Does the English translation of the Catholic Catechism incorrectly list 'generosity' as a fruit of the Holy Spirit where it should be 'longanimity'?

In the Vulgate, one of the twelve fruits of the Holy Spirit is "longanimitas" (Gal 5:22-23), which is often translated into English as "longanimity" or "long-suffering." In the English version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, however, neither longanimity nor long-suffering are among the twelve fruits. According to the CCC (1832), the twelve fruits are charity, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, generosity, gentleness, faithfulness, modesty, self-control, and chastity. Which of these corresponds to "longanimitas" and why the non-standard translation?

In Decrees of the First Vatican Council (1868) in Session 3, Chapter 2 "On Revelation", items 6-7 state: > The complete books of the old and the new Testament with all their parts, as they are listed in the decree of the said council and **as they are found in the old Latin Vulgate edition**, **are to be received as sacred and canonical**. These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit, **they have God as their author**, **and were as such committed to the church**. I cannot tell if a Papal Encyclical is the same as infallible statements which are Fides ecclesiastica or ex-cathedra or if they contain such infallible statements. If not, it appears as though an encyclical statement still represents the end of theological debate, as per Pope Pius XII in Humani generis (which is a Papal Encyclical itself): > Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me" (Luke 10:16); and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. **But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.** As I cannot ascertain the difference between an infallible statement and a statement which closes a topic to theological discussion the question is: Given declarations in the encyclical of Vatican I regarding the Old Latin Vulgate (whether these declarations are dogma or not, I cannot tell), are Catholics allowed to entertain that this translation contains errors, considering that another Encyclical states that encyclical statements close their subject matter to debate?

The Greek text (Textus Receptus) of Romans 5:12 reads: > δια τουτο ωσπερ δι ενος ανθρωπου η αμαρτια εις τον κοσμον εισηλθεν και > δια της αμαρτιας ο θανατος και ουτως εις παντας ανθρωπους ο θανατος > διηλθεν εφ ω παντες ημαρτον Which one fairly literal translation (*The Orthodox New Testament Praxapostolos* ) renders: > *Therefore, even as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and thus death passed to all men, on account of > which all have sinned* But the Vulgate translates the final phrase ("on account of which all have sinned" - εφ ω παντες ημαρτον) as *in quo omnes peccaverunt*. The Douay-Rheims translation of the Vulgate reads therefore: > *Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, **in whom all have sinned**.* The implication is that somehow all have sinned in Adam - i.e. they inherit the guilt of Adam's sin. Unless I am misunderstanding the apparatus, there is no variant in the Greek text that supports this wording. John Chrysostom - a 4th century Greek Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church - does not seem to interpret the verse this way in his homily on the passage . My understanding is that the verse appeared this way in Latin in Augustine's *De Peccato Originale*, which also introduced the term "original sin" in the west, though perhaps that was not the first occurrence. It seems that the Augustinian-Vulgate understanding of this verse has seeped into other English translations to various degrees. While the King James is close to the literal translation above (*And so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned*), other translations follow more closely the Latin meaning. The ESV and RSV state, for example, *... and so death spread to all men because all sinned* (i.e. cause and effect are transposed). Is there some reasoned explanation for the apparent departure of the Vulgate from the Greek text of Romans 5:12? (Perhaps this should be posted in BH instead, but since the passage of interest touches on theological differences between Christians I thought to post it here.)

Just wondering why they chose Latin instead of Greek to be the source of truth of the texts, and instead added this abstraction layer when they were so close to the Greek culture at the time?

It seems that the [Codex Amiatinus](https://www.facsimilefinder.com/facsimiles/codex-amiatinus-facsimile) is the oldest most complete version of the Vulgate bible (which misses the Book of Baruch). What did it look like? Looking up close at the blurry images, the text looks like the [Insular style script](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_script) which was used around the 700's in Northumbria. The text on the right page looks like it is devoid of **verse markers**, **chapter markers**, and **page markers**. But it does look like there is primitive punctuation like **spacing between words** and _possibly_ **periods** though I can't quite see clearly enough. According to [this site](http://www.bible-researcher.com/chapter-verse.html) , it was Robert Stephens' Greco-Latin Testament of 1551 which established our current "verse divisioned" bible. Though I'm not sure if this means _no_ verse divisions were present in bibles before. Primitive chapter divisions may have been present in the mid to late 1200's. But I'm confused on dates (first part of question). [Wikipedia says about the Vulgate Bible](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate) that it is from the 300's. [This Book of Durrow](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Durrow) is said to have been created around 700. According to [Wikipedia's Biblical Manuscripts page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript) , the Septuagint (Greek) is from around 200, while the Vulgate is from the 400s, the Codex Amiatinus being the first _complete_ Vulgate in the 700s. How does this relate to the Book of Durrow? Same font, I can see that, was it the same author? Those are tangent questions. According to [etymonline](https://www.etymonline.com/word/vulgate) , the Vulgate was first completed in 405 by St. Jerome (c.340-420). So then we only have a _partial_ copy of this from piecing together the articles, since this was centuries before the Codex Amiatinus. Interestingly, sort of side note, [vulgate](https://www.etymonline.com/word/vulgate) comes through the Medieval Latin _vulgata_, fem. past participle of _vulgare_ "to make common or public; to spread among the multitude", from _vulgus_ "the common people". The Vulgate bible wasn't "confirmed" by the Catholic Church as the "official" Latin Bible until the Council of Trent in the mid 1500s. So from my understanding, the "Vulgate" ... > ...translation was largely the work of Jerome, who in 382 had been commissioned by Pope Damasus I to revise the Vetus Latina ("Old Latin") Gospels then in use by the Roman Church. The Codex Amiatinus was a _version_ of the Vulgate written in Northumbria using the Irish-inspired Insular script. Thus, the original Jerome Vulgate probably didn't look like this. The Wikipedia page for "Vulgate" shows an image of [The Malmesbury Bible](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate#/media/File:Bible.malmesbury.arp.jpg) : There is no Wikipedia page for the Malmesbury Bible, so I don't know what it is. Google's first link is the [Gothic Bible](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_Bible) , but there's no reference there to Malmesbury, so I don't know what it is. But [here](https://en.vikidia.org/wiki/Bible) says that Malmesbury image is from the 1400's. So no luck there. The ["Old Latin"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vetus_Latina) "Bible" looks like this: No punctuation whatsoever, justified text, all caps, no spaces, etc. Not sure what font (would love to know!). Looks like the [Uncial script](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncial_script) . Wikipedia says: > There is no single "Vetus Latina" Bible. Instead, Vetus Latina is a collection of biblical manuscript texts that are Latin translations of Septuagint and New Testament passages that preceded Jerome's Vulgate. **So should I assume that Jerome wrote the original Vulgate bible to look exactly like the Vetus Latina manuscripts at the time?** Or is there an image online in a digital museum showing one of Jerome's original manuscripts? Basically I would like to know what font, and what punctuation is used in the earliest Vulgate version. I know that by the 700's the complete copy of Codex Amiatinus was written in Insular script (Latin), with some primitive punctuation, but not exactly sure if they used periods or capital words. I think yes to periods, no to paragraphs, no to verses or chapters, and no to capital words. But _before_ Codex Amiatinus, I am not sure if the Vulgate from Jerome looked like the _Vetus Latina_, or something else. Looking forward to an explanation, specifically of this bible's typography: - The font style (or a close approximation) - If they used capital letters like we do in english Hello There - If they used periods to end sentences - If they used paragraphs - If they marked _books_ or divided them somehow - If they marked _chapters_ or divided them somehow - If they marked _verses_ or divided them somehow - If they used spaces between words (or if they used some other separator like the middle dot seen sometimes in Latin)

In a recent Q&A on Hermeneutics.SE , I made an arguement that carried the implication that Jerome's translation of *κεχαριτωμένη* ('favored one’)† as *gratia plena* ('full of grace’)† in Luke 1:28 was misleading, conflated as it is with another phrase that has a different meaning in Greek. It was rightly pointed out that I didn't discuss the reason *why* Jerome made that decision. Since I don't see an obvious *linguistic* explanation,* I wondered if there might be a doctrinal and/or sociological explanation. In another Q&A on Christianity.SE , Jerome is cited as a key proponent of the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. I'm not sure whether that has anything to do with the appellation “full of grace” or not. Other aspects of Mariology seem more relevant. I'm interested in knowing: 1. What did Jerome believe about the immaculate conception? 2. What did he believe about Mary as Mediatrix of graces ? 3. Did he use Luke 1:28 in defense of any Mary-related doctrine? --- † Glosses extracted from ESV and Douay Rheims, respectively. *Particularly with regard to translation decisions, even if I disgree with the choice, I can sometimes see the reasons for a different decision. Here I don’t.

How do Catholic theologians reconcile homoousion with the Vulgate translation of Hebrews 1:3? >(Vulgata Clementa) qui cum sit splendor glóriæ, et **figúra substántiæ ejus,** portánsque ómnia verbo virtútis suæ, purgatiónem peccatórum fáciens, sedet ad déxteram majestátis in excélsis > >(Douay-Rheims) Who being the brightness of his glory, and **the figure of his substance,** and upholding all things by the word of his power, making purgation of sins, sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high. Isn't being a "figure of" God's substance indicate that he did not actually "share" God's substance?

In the Vulgate translation of Jonah 4:6–7, 4:9–10, Jerome translated the Hebrew word קִיקָיוֹן (*kikayon*) into Latin as *hedera*, which is the equivalent of the English word "ivy ." Some, including Augustine, expressed their discontent with this particular translation of Jerome. In response, what was Jerome's personal defense for his translation of the Hebrew word קִיקָיוֹן into Latin as *hedera*?