Jerome, who writes accurately, affirms he revised the entire New Testament

Steven Avery

The only real argument left against Jerome's authorship of the Vulgate Prologue is the false modern scholarship claim that Jerome only translated the Gospels. A claim that John Chapman tore to shreds.

This thread will look at just the question of what Jerome affirmed.

Since we are not hampered by the persuppositional confusions of the modern scholars, the Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles will be included with the references given by Aloys Dirksen and others.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

spots where Jerome affirms translation of full New Testament - Aloys Dirksen and Walter Drum

Aloys H. Dirksen

Jerome... explicitly states that he revised the entire N. T., De Vir. III. 135, Ep. 71, 5 (to Lucinius) and Ep. 112, 20 (to Augustine).

Is the Vulgate the Work of St. Jerome?
Walter Drum

In this matter, it is worth noting that St Jerome had undoubtedly completed his New Testament before A. D. 392. For during that year he wrote, in De viris Illustribus, 21 Novum Testamentum graecae fidei reddidi This same testimony was repeated in the letters to Lucinius,22 A. D. 398, and to Augustine,23 A. D. 404. Such a testimony, given three times in the extant writings of St. Jerome, cannot be lightly set aside. Dom de Bruyne is not very critical when he slurs the reputation of St Jerome by writing:

“These testimonies prove only one thing, that we must not take too literally the sayings of St Jerome—particularly when he speaks of his own works.*24

Then he rips Don de Bruyne (Benedictine Abbey of Maredsous) and gives some interesting history. Nicholas Zegers (1495-1559) and Richard Simon (1638-1712) are referenced as giving some passages where Jerome is taking a textual position different than his Vulgate position.

Earlier references here:

Pure Bible Forum
Vulgate Prologue - super-evidence
Jerome's claim to translate the full New Testament

Pure Bible Forum
Vulgate Prologue - super-evidence
Jerome thrice says that he revised the (whole of the) New Testament

Westcott especially seems to add an auxiliary support.

Some additional background on the views of Dom de Bruyne:

Texts and Studies: Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature (1891)
edited by Joseph Armitage Robinson
The Biblical Texts Used by Pelagius

There reached me in August 1914 a privately printed article by Dom Donatien de Bruyne, O.S.B. (who will always be remembered for his identification of the Latin Marcionite prologues to the Epistles of St Paul4), under the title: '£tude sur les Origines de Notre Texte Latin de Saint Paul.’ This article was afterwards published, with slight modifications, in the Revue Biblique for October 1915. In it Dom de Bruyne displays all the acute power of reasoning we have learned to expect from him. He reminds us how uncertain is the question of the Vulgate of the New Testament apart from the Gospels. We have Jerome’s triple statement that he revised the whole New Testament, but we have no Hieronymian New Testament prologues except for the Gospels, and Jerome himself never, it seems, makes any use of the Vulgate of the Pauline Epistles. As Pelagius is the earliest author to use the Vulgate of the Epistles 1, and as the general Pelagian prologue appears in practically all Vulgate copies of the Epistles, sometimes under the name of Pelagius himself; as, further, & preface is the mark of an edition, the author of the Vulgate of the Epistles is none other than Pelagius himself!

It is not necessary to follow his argument further. It is based in part on a necessarily imperfect knowledge of the manuscripts containing the Pelagius commentary in one form or another, and is, in my opinion, as regards the three editions of the Vulgate, really fallacious. I feel, however, that I owe Dom de Bruyne and others an apology for the measure of responsibility that belongs to me.

Naturally, a sensational view like that of Dom de Bruyne was not allowed to pass unchallenged even in the midst of the Great War. The AbW Eug. Mangenot, professor of the Institut Catholique at Paris, published in the Revue da Clerge francais in 1916 an article entitled ‘Saint Jerome ou Pelage editeur ies Epltres de Saint Paul dans la Vulgate2.’ His article is an able and learned exposition of what might be called the traditional view, that Jerome revised the whole New Testament3. Father M.-J. Lagrange of Jerusalem, author of two valuable commentaries, one on the Epistle to the Romans and the other on the Epistle to the Galatians (1918), has in recent years made a profound study of the Vulgate text of the Epistles of St Paul. Particular attention must be called to the article entitled: ‘La Vulgate latine de l’fipttre aux Galates et le texte grec’ published in the Revue Biblique for 19174, which followed a corresponding article on the Epistle to the Romans in the same review for 1916 5. Alive to the difficulties which Dom de Bruyne has posed afresh, he seeks to solve them by the view that Jerome is indeed the author of the Vulgate of the Epistle to the Galatians, but that its date falls between the date of Jerome’s commentary on Galatians (384) and 392 (the date of the De Viris Inlustribus). Lagrange also shows from De Bruyne’s own data that Pelagius employed an Old-Latin text of Galatians6, and absolutely denies Pelagian authorship of the Vulgate, by referring to the type of text preserved in the Balliol manuscript.

With the view Lagrange expresses as to the different Old-Latin texts employed by the commentators Ambrosiaster, Jerome, Pelagius, I should agree entirely. In the Bulletin de Litterature Ecclesiastique de Toulouse1 Father Cavallera supports Lagrange’s contentions in the Revue Biblique for 1917 (just mentioned) and 1918 (pp. 255 ff.). Cavallera concludes, as I believe rightly, that in 384 Jerome had issued a revision of the Gospels only, and that such revision of the Epistles of St Paul as he made was subsequent to that date. (SA note: does the Epistle to Marcella indicate publication by 384?) The texts cited by Jerome in his celebrated letter to Marcella, epist. 27 § 3 (a.d. 384), have in Cavallera’s opinion the purpose of direct polemic against those that have been angered by Jerome’s criticisms. The use of the subjunctive throughout, legant, etc., rather excludes the idea of an already existing translation of the Epistles by Jerome.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Lucinus, Illustrious Men. Augustine. Marcella and the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles


Westcott about Jerome's Epistle to Marcella c. 384 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 the Old Latin (Rom. xii. 11, Domino servientes, for tempori servientes; 1 Tim. v. 19, add. nisi sub duobus aut tribus testibus; 1 Tim. i. 15, fidelis sermo, for humanus sermo).
And the Epistle to Marcella reference given by Westcott.

Letter xxvii. To Marcella.
The Principal Works of St. Jerome — St. Jerome

In this letter Jerome defends himself against the charge of having altered the text of Scripture, and shows that he has merely brought the Latin Version of the N.T. into agreement with the Greek original. Written at Rome 384 a.d.

3. But "when I set the wheel rolling I began to form a wine flagon; how comes it that a waterpot is the result?" [716] Lest Horace laugh at me I come back to my two-legged asses, and din into their ears, not the music of the lute, but the blare of the trumpet. [717] They may say if they will, "rejoicing in hope; serving the time," but we will say "rejoicing in hope; serving the Lord." [718] They may see fit to receive an accusation against a presbyter unconditionally; but we will say in the words of Scripture, "Against an elder [719] receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all." [720] They may choose to read, "It is a man's saying, and worthy of all acceptation;" we are content to err with the Greeks, that is to say with the apostle himself, who spoke Greek. Our version, therefore, is, it is "a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation." [721]

[718] Romans 12:11, 12. The reading kurio "Lord" is probably correct. The R.V. says, "Some ancient authorities read the opportunity," (kairo).
[719] I.e. a "presbyter.”
[720] 1 Timothy 5:19, 20.
[721] 1 Timothy 1:15.
Next the Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles, Kevin Edgecomb translation:


On Illustrious Men - 392 AD

I translated the New Testament from the Greek, and the Old Testament from the Hebrew, and how many Letters I have written To Paula and Eustochium I do not know, for I write daily.


Jerome Epistle 71 to Lucinus (398 AD)

It is a false rumour which has reached you to the effect that I have translated the books of Josephus and the volumes of the holy men Papias and Polycarp. I have neither the leisure nor the ability to preserve the charm of these masterpieces in another tongue. Of Origen and Didymus I have translated a few things, to set before my countrymen some specimens of Greek teaching. The canon of the Hebrew verity — except the octoteuch which I have at present in hand — I have placed at the disposal of your slaves and copyists. Doubtless you already possess the version from the septuagint which many years ago I diligently revised for the use of students. The new testament I have restored to the authoritative form of the Greek original. For as the true text of the old testament can only be tested by a reference to the Hebrew, so the true text of the new requires for its decision an appeal to the Greek.


And to Augustine c. 404

Epistola CXII
(al. 89; scripta circa finem anni 404)
Hieronymi ad Augustinum
Epistola C
(al. numero caret; scripta et latine reddita an. 404)
Sive Theophili Alexandrini episcopi ad Totius Aegypti episcopos Paschalis anii 404.
D. Hieronymo interprete
Section 20

Et si me, ut dicis, in novi Testamenti emendatione suscipis, exponisque causam cur suscipias; quia plurimi linguae Graecae habentes scientiam, de meo possint opere judicare: eamdem integritatem debueras etiam in veteri credere Testamento, quod non nostra confinximus; sed ut apud Hebraeos invenimus, divina transtulimus. Sicubi dubitas, Haebraeos interroga.

If I thought that, as you say, is there to take in the amendment of the New Testament, exponisque a reason why we may take in; because most of them, having knowledge of the Greek tongue, he will be able to judge the work: to believe in the Old Testament, too, you should have the integrity of the same, that it is not our confinximus; but in order that we find among the Hebrews, the divine themselves. Where some doubt, ask Haebraeos

The Vulgate Prologue of Jerome (c. 405-410), Paula (AD 347–404) is not mentioned in the saluation)

The order of the seven Epistles, which are named Canonical, as is found in Latin books is not thus among the Greeks who believe rightly and follow the correct faith. For as Peter is first in the order of the Apostles, first also are his Epistles in the order of the others. But as we have just now corrected the Evangelists to the line of truth, so we have restored, with God helping, these to their proper order. For the first of them is one of James, two of Peter, three of John, and one of Jude. Which, if they were arranged by them and thus were faithfully turned into Latin speech by interpreters, they would have neither made ambiguity for readers nor would they have attacked the variety of words themselves, especially in that place where we read what is put down about the oneness of the Trinity in the First Epistle of John. In which we find many things to be mistaken of the truth of the faith by the unfaithful translators, who put down in their own edition only three words, that is, Water, Blood, and Spirit, and who omit the witness of the Father and Word and Spirit, by which both the Catholic faith is greatly strengthened and also the one substance of the Divinity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is proved. Indeed, in the other Epistles, I leave to the judgment of the reader how much the edition of the others differs from ours. But you, O virgin of Christ Eustochium, while you zealously seek from me the truth of Scripture, you expose my old age, as it were, to the devouring teeth of the envious, who call me a falsifier and corruptor of the Holy Scriptures. But I, in such a work, am afraid of neither the envy of my rivals, nor will I refuse those requesting the truth of Holy Scripture.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Witness of God

St. Jerome revised the whole New Testament. It is time to give proofs. They are of overwhelming strength. (p. 283) ...Tradition is unanimous. Until the few rather hasty modern critics, not a voice was ever raised to suggest that St. Jerome did not revise the whole New Testament. The victorious career of the Vulgate is entirely due to the fact that it was universally believed in early times to be a revision carried out by the most learned of Western Doctors at the bidding of Pope Damasus. It is true that the Old Latin did not immediately expire, and that St. Gregory the Great at the very end of the sixth century declared that the Roman Church used the old version [PAGE 285] as well as the new. In theory, yes. But even from St. Jerome's time onwards, pure Old Latin is not often to be found for the N.T. We have Vulgate, impure Vulgate, and mixed Old Latin and Vulgate, but no longer a rival Old Latin. And behind this tradition we have absolutely definite and categorical statements by St. Jerome himself, that he revised the whole New Testament.
(Chapman, St. Jerome and the Vulgate N.T., part 3, 1923, p. 284-285)

St. Jerome and the Vulgate New Testament (1923)
John Chapman
Not free

p. 293-299

§13. St Jerome is always accurate and sober in enumerating his own Writings.

St Jerome's works are very numerous. It is generally possible to determine in what order he wrote them, and in what year, from his own statements. We can discover the dates of his translations of various books of the Old Testament. His letters have nearly all been arranged in the order of their composition. When he speaks of his age he is not always to be trusted , as he is sometimes inclined to exaggerate his years, to speak of himself as an aged man, when we might think him in late middle age; and when looking back to his youth he seems to exaggerate his youthfulness at the date he is recalling. This makes it difficult to determine the date of his birth. But in determining the dates of his writings we do not encounter these difficulties. And he is accurate as to amount. He usually mentions the number of books in each work. He complains of the labour they cost him ; he is proud of the care he took in translating the Old Testament; yet he frankly says in his Preface to his version of Tobit: ‘unius diei laborem arripui and in his Preface to Judith ‘ huic unam lucubratiunculam dedi ' for he only gave a few hours to these tasks, to please his friends.1

1 So in the Pref. to his Comm, on Matt., he insists on the hurry with which he had to dictate it.

I cite, as a good example of Jerome’s careful accounts of his work, the last written of his prefaces to his commentaries on the minor
prophets. It is addressed to Pammachius (A. D. 406):

The first five were published in 392, for in the preface to Jonas (already referred to) he said (in 395):


So in 395 he is careful to explain that he had as yet commented on only five of the minor prophets, just as in 406 he tells us that it was only ‘after a long silence’ that he started on the sixth. In the Preface Iungat epistola to the Vulgate Solomon he explains that illness has prevented his writing the commentaries on Osee, Amos, Zacharias, and Malachias, which Chromatius and Heliodorus were demanding. These two bishops paid St Jerome’s secretaries and scribes (notarii and librarii). But the writing of De uiris illustribus was the first cause of the delay. In the last chapter (cxxxv) of that work he tells us that he had only commented on the five, but meant to get on with the rest. I transcribe the last part of the chapter, restoring the true text:


This is very frank and detailed. He carefully explains that he has written tractatus on seven Psalms only, and mentions which. He would give the number of letters to Paula and Eustochium, if he could.
His letter to the Spaniard Lucinus (so Hilberg with MSS, not Lucinius), Ep. 71, written in 398, is still more to the point. Lucinus had
sent six scribes to Bethlehem to copy all that Jerome had written from his youth up (Ep. 75. 4); but he wanted copies of some works which were non-existent:


I have italicized a few passages. We see here why St Jerome had to be so meticulously careful in the enumeration of his writings; it is
because so many were ascribed to him which he had not written, and he was worried to give copies of non-existent works.

He does not shew himself a boaster. He does not vaunt that he has published Josephus and Polycarp and Papias in Latin; he does not
claim to have translated a great quantity of Origen ; he is particular in explaining that he has not finished the Octateuch, though in fact he had already done a portion of it. We cannot doubt that he is sincere when he asserts that he revised the LXX1 and the N. T., and that he means to be understood of the whole of both.

1 He seems also to mean the whole of the LXX, adv. Ruf i 24. Cp. also Preface to Hebrew Psalter.

Were it otherwise, he would have been a liar, and a fool as well as a liar—and he was far from being a fool. We are asked by the critics to believe that, while he is correcting a false and annoying rumour that he had translated books which he had not translated, with the same pen and on the some paper 2 he is propagating a false rumour that he has translated other books which he had not translated !

2 To avoid captious criticism by the unlearned reader, I will note that at this date it was still considered rude to write a letter on parchment. Paper was always used. The pen, however, was probably in the hand of St Jerome's secretary, not in his own.

Why, Lucinus’s copyists were on the spot; Lucinus was expected shortly at Bethlehem in person ; he would be sure to ask for a copy to be made of this new recension of Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse (for if St Jerome is lying, Lucinus cannot have possessed one already),—and how is Jerome to get out of it ? Why, the readers all over Christendom of that most popular book, De uiris
would clamour for copies of this (till then unheard of) revision ; Bethlehem would be overwhelmed with letters from publishers and booksellers and friends and unknown correspondents, and the recluse would have had to explain and explain that he had only been talking big, and there was nothing to copy.

But in fact the list of writings in the De uiris illustribus was just as careful not to say too much. It does not mention the revision of the
LXX, for most of it had been destroyed 3;

3 'Pleraque enim prioris laboris ob fraudem cuiusdam amisimus,' Ep. 112. 19.

it had been a laborious work and St Jerome was proud of it, but he could not mention it, as he would be bored by requests for copies. It does not mention the translation of the O. T., although in the preceding chapter (134) we are told of Sophronius of Bethlehem : ‘ opuscula mea in Graecum eleganti sermone transtulit: Psalterium quoque et Prophetas quos nos de Hebraeo in
Latinum uertimus.’ It is only from this passage that we know that St Jerome had translated the Prophets and the Psalms as early as 392. But he seems not to have cared for his translations to be circulated much, except among his friends,4



until the whole should be finished, probably because he wished to reserve to himself the power of still making alterations. Finally, the list does not mention the Roman or the Gallican Psalter.1


Why then docs the list include the revision of the N. T., except because it was published to the world and widely known ? Its very
position in the list shews that the Gospels alone are not meant. The Gospels appeared in 384, and their place in the list would have been among the works published while St Jerome was at Rome.

§14. St Jerome published his revision of the whole New Testament in 391

It is thus certain that St Jerome twice declares that he revised the New Testament, and that on both occasions he makes this declaration in the course of giving a detailed and precise list of writings. The list in the De uiris illustribus is strictly chronological. We can therefore quite simply determine the year in which St Jerome published to the world his completed revision. The dates of the preceding and following works are certain enough:

Origen on Luke, translated 389
Lives of St Malchus and St Hilarion 390
Letters to Paula, still being written 392
Comm, on five minor Prophets 392

The lives of the captive monk and Hilarion are placed in 390, on the strength of this list, by Vallarsi, &c. The early part of 392 must have been wholly occupied by the five commentaries and work commenced on other prophets.

Hence it seems that we can hardly be wrong in placing the N. T. in 391, four years after the commentaries on St Paul, and seven years after the appearance of the four Gospels alone.

I fear the reader of this article may think I have argued with an unnecessary amount of detail. But the conclusions at which we have at
length arrived are of such great importance for the revision of the Vulgate, that I have tried to make every point as clear as possible.
Supposing the revision of the New Testament to have been made by several different authors, or to have been published at various times, or even to have passed through two or three successively corrected editions in the case of St Paul’s epistles, or simply to be later than St Jerome s time, the whole question of restoring the text of the revision would be perturbed. If there were several revisers (as Corssen and De Bruyne have thought) we should have to learn the character of text preferred by each. If the parts were published at different dates, the genealogies of families of MSS would need to be treated in a different way. If the Vulgate St Paul was a third edition of Pelagius, it would be from fifty to a hundred years later than 391, and the earliest manuscripts would be far nearer to the original. I believe that the history of the texts makes such hypotheses impossible; and if research proceeded on the basis of such hypotheses, I imagine the whole subject would be involved in an inextricable tangle. The fact that St Jerome revised the whole with one method and published the result together, as a single book with one Preface to the whole, must simplify the history of the text of the N. T., the Gospels apart.

No less important, in my opinion, is the conclusion that St Jerome exercised great care and great restraint in revising St Paul, that he really collected a number of varying Latin texts, and was anxious not to introduce a new translation wherever any old reading would serve. This necessarily throws a light on his method of revising the Gospels.

It was the opinion of Bishop Wordsworth and Mr White when they published St Jerome’s text (most judiciously restored) with the text ot the codex Brixianus (f) printed below it, that the latter codex represents the Old Latin text on which St Jerome based his revision. I have always regarded f as a semi-Vulgate text. Mr Burkitt argues that it depends on the Gothic version. Prof. Souter has shewn that for the Parable of the Prodigal Son in Ep. xxi (a. d. 383) St Jerome used a codex resembling the Vercellensis (a), and he suggests that it is this type of text which lies behind St Jerome’s revision.

I venture to disagree. I think St Jerome really did what he professes to have done in his letter Nouum opus. When Newman proposed to revise the Douai version of the Bible, he collected a number of editions of the English versions, Protestant and Catholic, and the volumes may be still seen on the shelves of the Edgbaston Oratory. Similarly, St Jerome seems to have collected a number of codices of the Gospels and of the rest of the N. T., and to have ‘sat in judgement * upon them, as St Damasus had required. I do not think we can say that a or f dominates in the result. But many difficulties are explained by St Jerome’s shyness in introducing new readings which were not supported by any of his MSS. And possibly the variety of codices on St Jerome’s shelves supplies a partial explanation of the startling variety of his quotations in his later writings: he used any volume which came to hand, when he did not simply trust to memory.

John Chapman.

Note: on Corssen and Cavallera
Last edited:

Steven Avery

John Chapman (1865-1933)

Chapman deals superbly with the question of Jerome's authorship of the full Vulgate NT.

Journal of Theological Studies (1923) - Hugh Houghton bibliography says 1933
John Chapman


St. Jerome and the Vulgate New Testament I p. 33-51

St. Jerome and the Vulgate New Testament II p. 113-125

St. Jerome and the Vulgate New Testament III p. 282-299


St. Jerome and the Vulgate New Testament I.
p. 33-51

St. Jerome and the Vulgate New Testament II
p. 113-125

St. Jerome and the Vulgate New Testament III
p. 282-299


JSTOR - part 1
JSTOR - part 2
JSTOR - part 3


Oxford Academic
Last edited:

Steven Avery

CARM has p. 33 and will likely have more

Journal of Theological Studies (1922)
St Jerome and the Vulgate New Testament
John Chapman

The question whether St Jerome is the author of the whole Vulgate New Testament, or only of the Gospels, has been much debated, and ought to be settled, if possible, as it is a matter of great practical importance for the editing of the Vulgate, and its elucidation touches a large number of interesting points.

The history of the debate is not worth recording here. Richard Simon’s arguments are as good as any which have been put forward since his day.1 Recently, Wordsworth and White have pronounced in favour of St Jerome as reviser of the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse. So also Mangenot. Lagrange has taken the opposite view, and a very elaborate study by Père Cavallera has claimed to decide the question in the same sense, while Dom De Bruyne has attributed the Vulgate St Paul to Pelagius. This last hypothesis need not be dealt with here. I hope to shew in the Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique that Pelagius was no textual critic, knew no Greek, and commented on an Old-Latin text, which he never attempted to improve. He has no point of contact with the Vulgate. I hold with Wordsworth and White that the whole Vulgate is St Jerome’s work.
1 Dom De Bruyne (Revut bibl. Oct. 1915) enumerates, as the earlier doubters on the subject, Erasmus, Faber Stapulensis, Pithocus, and Zegers. He has reproduced the arguments of the last of these.

This is the beginning of the John Chapman section.

Last edited:

Steven Avery


CARM has quotes from Chapman

more to add


Poggio Bracciolini - Gian Francesco (1380-1459) Valla Vulgate dispute includes Jerome authorship

Bentley p. 161
As in textual criticism , so in his evaluation of the Vulgate as a translation of the Greek New Testament. Erasmus took his initial cues from Lorenzo Valla's work. Valla had argued that St. Jerome did not translate the Vulgate New Testament , and he attacked the Vulgate itself for poor literary style, inaccurate translation, and general obscurity in representing the Greek New Testament.
Valla also wrote a treatise on the Latin Vulgate, comparing it with certain Greek New Testament manuscripts which he had in his possession.
Erasmus, who from his youth had been an admirer of Valla found a manuscript of Valla's treatise in 1504 and had it printed in the following year. In this work Valla favored the Greek New Testament text over the Vulgate. The Latin text often differed from the Greek, he reported. Also
there were omissions and additions in the Latin translation, and the Greek wording was generally better than that of the Latin. (6)
Note 6 Principles and Problems of Translation, Schwarz, pp. 96-97, 132-39

p. 127-128
One may conjecture from this that the Vulgate which we now use was not same as the one which Jerome had at that time.2 But that person, whoever he was, seems to me to have wanted to interpret the word as acquisition, which is in any case ambiguous.
2 On Erasmus' assessment of Jerome as author of the Vulgate see Bentley Humanists 162.

Council of Trent

Petrus Pithaus

Richard Simon - affirms Jerome authorship - Petrus Pithaus - Petri Pithoe

Lefever d'Etaples

Paul of Middleburg

Jedin on the Council of Trent

Wordsworth and White - Jerome author

Mangenot - (1856-1902) pro Jerome author per Metzger
E. Mangenot, ‘Saint Jerome reviscur du Nouveau Testament’, RBy N.S. xv (1918), 244-53. (Metzger)

Ernesto Buonaiuti, ‘Pelagius and the Pauline Vulgate’, ExpT xxvii (1915/16), PP- 425-7- (Metzger)

In his rebuttal of Mangenot, Lagrange says that it was his intention to show that Jerome had begun to use for his commentaries a text which approached that which he was to issue later as the Vulgate, but which had not yet been freed from as many Old Latin traits as the Vulgate; ‘La revision de la Vulgate par S. Jerome’, RBy n.s. xv (1918), 254-7, and Critique textuelle, p. 503. (Metzger)

Pere Cavallara

Metzger gives as pro-Vulgate authenticity
Buonaiuti, Mangenot, Chapman, and Souter

Dom de Bruyne
D. de Bruyne, RB n.s. 12 [1915] 363-64).

Walter Drum

William Fremantle
It was intended as a preface to the Gospels only; but from the record of his works in the list of ecclesiastical writers (de Vir. Ill. 135), which states that he had restored the N.T. according to the original Greek, as well as from other passages (e.g. Ep. xxvii. 3), we infer that the whole version was completed (see Vallarsi's pref. to vol. x.; also Murray's Illus. B. D. (1908), art. VULGATE).

Alexander Souter (1873-1949) - pro Jerome per Metzger
7 ‘The Character and History of Pelagius’ Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul’, Proceedings of the British Academy, 1915-16, pp. 261-96, esp. 264-74; ‘Pelagius and the Pauline Text in the Book of Armagh’, JTS xvi (1915), 105; and Pelagius’s Expositions of Thirteen Epistles of St Paul; i, Introduction; ii, Text and Apparatus Crilicus; iii, Pseudo-Jerome Interpolations (Texts and Studies, ix. 1-3; Cambridge, 1922-31), esp. i. 155-8.

John Chapman (1865-1933) - pro Jerome per Metzger
Journal of Theological Studies (1922)
St Jerome and the Vulgate New Testament
(RHE 18 [1922] 469-81; 19 [1923] 25-42;
JTS 24 [1923] 33-51, 113-25, 282-99)
Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique
Aelred Cody gives this bibliography




Albert A. Bell

C. Brown Tkacz - 1996 - mentioned in Dunphy

P. Burton - 2000 - mentioned in Dunphy

Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice (2005). "Le livre de Baruch dans les manuscrits de la Bible latine. Disparition et réintégration". Revue Bénédictine. 115 (2): 286–342. doi:10.1484/J.RB.5.100598.

J. K. Elliott
The Translations of the New Testament into Latin: The Old Latin and the Vulgate (1992)

Kevin Edgecomb

Edward J. Hahnenberg

Walter Dunphy

Henning Graf Reventlow, - (2010)

Simon Goldhill (b. 1957)
"Jerome can not be its author"

Andrew Cain
Because he had faced withering criticism for his Gospels revision just two years earlier, one can imagine Jerome being wary of embarking on a comparable project involving another segment of the New Testament text (albeit one that, unlike the revision, would not be its own free-standing work but would be partnered with commentaries). Another round of controversy is exactly what he would not want because it would draw attention away from the exegesis itself, which Jerome hailed as an outstanding and indeed unprecedented achievement in the Latin West.51
Moreover, his Gospels project had come with a papal seal of approval, and if that could not save him from the fall-out he experienced, then he could not reasonably expect a revision (or translation) of the Pauline epistles, which lacked any such high-profile endorsement, to fare any better.52

Canellis, Aline, ed. (2017). Jérôme : Préfaces aux livres de la Bible [Jerome : Preface to the books of the Bible] (in French). Abbeville: Éditions du Cerf. pp. 89–90, 217. ISBN 978-2-204-12618-2.

Hugh Houghton - below post and check p. 36 and review bibliography

Anna Persig

Aline Canellis
Jérôme: Préfaces aux livres de la Bible.

Scherbenske, Eric W. (2013). Canonizing Paul: Ancient Editorial Practice and the Corpus Paulinum. Oxford University Press. p. 183.

Aelred Cody (1988)
Review of Frede
Vetus Latina: Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel nach Petrus Sabatier neu gesammelt und herausgegeben von der Erzabtei Beuron. Band 25: Epistulae ad Thessalonicenses, Timotheum, Titum, Philemonem, Hebraeos, Pars I: Einleitung; Epistulae ad Thessalonicenses, Timotheum by Hermann Josef Frede

Last edited:

Steven Avery

Houghton p. 41




Bonn School ---

Steven Avery


The 1922-23 section from John Chapman is focused on the authorship of the Vulgate, and answered in depth the types of objections mentioned by Hugh Houghton (who gave no detail, while John Chapman looks at the specifics in depth).

Try going over the three sections from John Chapman, which were extensively quoted in earlier posts.

Journal of Theological Studies (1922)
St Jerome and the Vulgate New Testament
John Chapman
p. 33-51
p. 113-125
p. 282-299

Earlier in this thread you were already given some detail (Gal. 5:9, 1 Cor. 5:6) mentioned by Houghton that you have dodged and avoided, and you provide no quotations from John Chapman that shows that he answered in depth these examples.

H. A. G. Houghton wrote:
"For example, at Galatians 5:9, he [Jerome] adjusts the lemma of his commentary to read modicum fermentum totam conspersionem fermentat ('a little yeast leavens the whole mixture') and observes:

male in nostris codicibus habetur: modicum fermentum totam massam corrumpit, et sensum potius interpres suum,
quam uerba apostoli transtulit (HI Ga. 3:5)

Our manuscripts are wrong in reading 'a little yeast spoils the whole lump' as the translator has conveyed his own understanding rather
than the words of the apostle.

It is most unlikely that Jerome would have allowed this form to persist in this letter and the identical phrase at 1 Corinthians 5:6 if he had been responsible for the Vulgate text of these Epistles" (The Latin New Testament, pp. 34-35).

You really should look at John Chapman before putting in quote-snippets:

Galatians 5:9 and 1 Corinthians 5:6