The Distinction Between the Vetus Latina and the Vulgate

In the field of Old Testament textual criticism, the Latin Bible requires careful distinction between two primary traditions. The Vetus Latina, or Old Latin, refers to early Latin translations of the Old Testament rendered primarily from the Greek Septuagint. These translations were uneven, varying widely across regions, and reflected no single unified textual base. By contrast, the Vulgata—which would later be known as the Vulgate—was chiefly translated by Jerome between 390 and 405 C.E. and based directly on the Hebrew text. The term “Vulgate” itself was not contemporaneous with Jerome; it came into use during the 16th century, when it meant the “commonly published text,” in recognition of its broad ecclesiastical use and authority.

For evangelical scholars, this distinction is critical. The Vetus Latina, being derived from the Septuagint, mirrors a Greek textual tradition removed from the original Hebrew. Jerome’s Vulgate, in contrast, pursued what he termed the Hebraica veritas—the Hebrew truth. Though the Vulgate does not hold primary textual authority above the Hebrew Masoretic Text, it serves as a valuable witness, especially when it preserves renderings reflecting early textual traditions consistent with what would later be standardized in the Masoretic tradition.

Jerome: Biography and Scholarly Formation

Jerome, born in Dalmatia between 340 and 350 C.E., was educated in Rome where he studied grammar, rhetoric, and Latin literature. He was baptized in Rome and later journeyed to Syria, entering into monastic life. There, he learned Hebrew under the instruction of a Jewish Christian, a significant and rare scholarly undertaking for his era. This foundation allowed him to engage directly with the Hebrew text, equipping him to translate the Old Testament from Hebrew into Latin with both linguistic competence and theological conviction.

Upon his return to Rome in 382 C.E., Jerome entered the service of Pope Damasus I, who tasked him with revising the existing Latin Bible. After Damasus’s death in 386 C.E., Jerome relocated to Bethlehem. There, with the assistance of his friend Paula, he established a monastic community and continued his translation efforts until his death in 420 C.E. Jerome’s extended scholarly project went far beyond the scope originally envisioned, becoming a comprehensive revision and translation of most of the Old Testament directly from the Hebrew.

The Psalms and Their Multiple Latin Versions

Jerome’s work on the Psalms illustrates his evolving textual methodology and the complexity of textual transmission. His initial revision was a cursory correction of the Old Latin Psalter against the Greek Septuagint, produced around 383 C.E. This text, known in later traditions as the Psalterium Romanum, likely did not enter widespread liturgical use.

A second effort, produced after Jerome’s relocation to Palestine, resulted in the Psalterium Gallicanum. This version was based on Origen’s Hexaplaric recension of the Septuagint, consulted from the library at Caesarea. Jerome’s work at this stage shows increased critical awareness, as he not only corrected the Latin against the Greek but also made use of the Hexaplaric sigla—marginal symbols indicating variants among Greek textual traditions. Nevertheless, this version, too, was not translated from the Hebrew. Rather, it represented an improved Greek-based Latin Psalter. The Psalterium Gallicanum later gained widespread acceptance due to historical circumstances: during the Carolingian reforms under Alcuin of York (ca. 730–804 C.E.), this version was incorporated into the liturgical Bible of the Frankish realm. Because Alcuin’s recension was influential at the University of Paris and became the normative version in medieval theology, the Gallican Psalter was later canonized by the Council of Trent in 1546.

Jerome’s third and most significant attempt was the Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos, a fresh translation of the Psalms directly from the Hebrew text. This version represents his mature commitment to the Hebrew source text. While it never achieved the liturgical status of the Gallican Psalter, it remains his most faithful rendering of the Psalms in Latin and is of significant value in textual criticism. Jerome carefully retained the structure of the Septuagint where it coincided with the Hebrew, but where differences arose, he followed the Hebrew text. His aim was not to displace the Septuagint tradition but to allow the Hebrew to illuminate and, when necessary, correct inherited textual readings.

Veritas Hebraica: Jerome’s Commitment to the Hebrew Text

The defining feature of Jerome’s biblical scholarship was his insistence on the veritas Hebraica—the truth of the Hebrew. Between 390 and 405 C.E., he translated the bulk of the Old Testament from the Hebrew, marking a decisive break from the Christian tradition of relying on the Septuagint. This move was not without controversy. In Jerome’s time, the Septuagint held authoritative status among many Christians, who regarded it as divinely inspired. To many, replacing it with a Hebrew-based translation smacked of Judaizing tendencies or even heresy.

Jerome defended his work strenuously, arguing that the integrity of Scripture required recourse to the original text. He did not reject the Septuagint outright but sought to supplement it with a translation rooted in the original language. In doing so, he laid the foundation for the principle now upheld in evangelical scholarship: that the inspired Word of God is the Hebrew text for the Old Testament, not its translations, however venerable.

Jerome and Augustine: A Theological Dispute

One of Jerome’s most notable controversies involved Augustine of Hippo, who questioned Jerome’s methodology. Augustine’s principal concern was that a translation from the Hebrew could not be verified by the broader Christian community, most of whom were unfamiliar with the language. He feared that Jerome’s solitary judgment would carry the risk of error and confusion. Furthermore, Augustine noted that Jerome’s readings differed in ways that caused unrest. He cited an incident in Oea (Tripoli) where Jerome’s translation of Jonah rendered the plant providing shade as a “vine” rather than the traditional “gourd.” This minor change provoked a riot, revealing how deeply embedded certain renderings had become in Christian consciousness.

Augustine argued that translation from the Septuagint had the advantage of consensus and ecclesial verification. It carried the weight of tradition and avoided the risk of appealing to Jewish authorities in resolving textual questions—a practice Augustine viewed with suspicion. Nevertheless, while Augustine appealed to pastoral and ecclesiastical pragmatism, Jerome maintained that only the Hebrew text could provide accurate insight into the original revelation of Scripture. His argument was ultimately vindicated in the long arc of biblical scholarship.

Linguistic Qualities of the Vulgate

Jerome’s Latin stands in marked contrast to earlier Latin translations. The Vetus Latina texts were often filled with awkward Greek constructions and lacked consistency. Jerome brought to his work a polished, classical Latin style that remained true to the simplicity of Hebrew syntax while avoiding slavish literalism. His style is marked by clarity, rhythm, and conciseness, rendering the Hebrew text in a form accessible to educated Latin readers.

The adaptability of Latin as a language further enhanced the Vulgate’s utility. Latin’s flexibility in expressing the terse constructions of biblical Hebrew allowed Jerome to maintain semantic precision while ensuring grammatical elegance. This stylistic accomplishment contributed to the Vulgate’s enduring use throughout the Latin-speaking church and its eventual canonization in the Council of Trent.

Codex Amiatinus and the Manuscript Tradition

Among the many manuscript witnesses to the Vulgate, the Codex Amiatinus stands out for its completeness and fidelity. Produced between 690 and 715 C.E. in England, likely at the twin monasteries of Wearmouth and Jarrow, it contains the entire Bible in Latin, including both Old and New Testaments. This codex was presented to the Pope in Rome by the abbot of the monastery, reflecting the international ecclesiastical exchange of the time.

Although the monastery possessed a Latin copy of Origen’s Hexaplaric recension, the scribe working on Codex Amiatinus used the standard Vulgate text available in his community. The scribes were aware of the deficiencies in their exemplars—especially evident in the Psalms, where only a poor Irish manuscript was available—and undertook corrections when possible. As a result, the Codex Amiatinus is not a pure reflection of Jerome’s autograph but represents a reliable witness to the Vulgate as it circulated in the early medieval period.

Post-Tridentine Editions and Scholarly Revisions

The Council of Trent (1546 C.E.) affirmed the Vulgate as the authoritative Latin text for the Roman Catholic Church. This pronouncement led to the production of official editions. The first attempt, authorized by Pope Sixtus V, was published in 1589 but was soon withdrawn due to its deficiencies. Pope Clement VIII oversaw subsequent revisions, leading to editions in 1592, 1593, and 1598. The Clementine Vulgate remained the standard edition for the Roman Catholic Church until the late 20th century.

In the early 20th century, the Benedictine Order, and later the Abbey of San Girolamo in Rome, undertook a critical edition of the Vulgate based on manuscript comparison. This scholarly edition, begun in 1926, reviewed approximately eight thousand manuscripts and distinguished between primary and secondary witnesses. It was completed in 1995 with the inclusion of the books Jerome had not translated (e.g., Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, and 1–2 Maccabees), which were included in their Old Latin form.

To aid students and scholars, an editio minor was produced in 1969 by Robert Weber, later revised by Roger Gryson. This manual edition, bound in green and widely used, included critical apparatus, distinctions between textual witnesses, and a unique parallel formatting of both the Psalterium Gallicanum and the Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos. The inclusion of both Psalters facilitates textual comparison and demonstrates the breadth of Jerome’s translational legacy.

Jerome’s Onomasticon and Geographic Scholarship

One additional scholarly tool produced by Jerome was his Latin translation of Eusebius’s Onomasticon, a geographical index of biblical place names. This work, translated around 390 C.E., was expanded and corrected by Jerome. It served not only as a tool for his translation work but also became the standard reference for Palestine’s geography in the Latin-speaking West. Though not directly part of the biblical text, this work reveals Jerome’s commitment to contextual precision and his scholarly rigor.

Textual Value of the Vulgate

For conservative textual critics, the value of the Vulgate lies not in its authority but in its witness to the Hebrew text as it existed in the late 4th and early 5th centuries C.E. Jerome worked from a purely consonantal Hebrew text—before the Masoretic system of vowel pointing—and his renderings often reveal how he understood the unpointed Hebrew. In cases where the Vulgate supports a reading otherwise attested only in the Septuagint or Samaritan Pentateuch, careful analysis must be applied. It is insufficient to assume that Jerome’s Hebrew exemplar contained such readings; each case must be examined in light of internal evidence, translation technique, and possible theological motivation.

Nevertheless, where Jerome’s Latin translation aligns with the Masoretic Text against the Septuagint, it strengthens confidence in the stability of the Hebrew tradition. It also allows scholars to track the development of textual traditions across linguistic and cultural boundaries. The Vulgate, while not inspired, is a providential witness to the text of Scripture and an indispensable tool in the history of transmission.

Textual Decisions Involving the Vulgate and the Weighing of Manuscripts

In Old Testament textual criticism, the Masoretic Text (MT), represented preeminently by Codex Leningrad B 19A (1008 C.E.) and the Aleppo Codex (10th century C.E.), is treated as the authoritative base text. Any departure from it must be supported by overwhelming manuscript evidence from multiple independent and ancient witnesses. The Vulgate, as a Latin translation by Jerome based directly on the Hebrew text between 390–405 C.E., plays a secondary but meaningful role in this process. It cannot stand alone to challenge the MT but may provide corroborative insight when it aligns with other textual witnesses such as the Septuagint (LXX), the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), the Syriac Peshitta, or the Aramaic Targums. Its evidentiary value is enhanced when its rendering reflects a credible reading of a Hebrew Vorlage that differs from the later standardized Masoretic form, especially in instances where the MT presents a grammatical or narrative difficulty.

Example 1: 1 Samuel 1:24 — Singular or Plural Sacrifice?

The Masoretic Text reads that Hannah brought “three bulls” (שְׁלֹשָׁה פָרִים), suggesting multiple animals were offered when she fulfilled her vow regarding Samuel. However, this reading presents a contextual oddity, as the surrounding narrative emphasizes the dedication of a single child, and the offering of one significant animal would be more fitting.

The Dead Sea Scrolls (4QSam^a) offer a singular reading, supported by a different word form, indicating “a three-year-old bull.” The Septuagint likewise reads “a three-year-old bull” (moschos trietēs), and the Vulgate follows suit with vitulum triennem (“a three-year-old calf”). This tripartite agreement suggests that the MT may reflect a copyist’s misreading of the unpointed Hebrew, confusing שָׁלֹש (“three”) with שְׁלִישׁ or שָׁלִישׁ (a term implying age or order).

In this case, the internal difficulty in the MT is met with uniform early external evidence from DSS, LXX, and the Vulgate. Thus, the Vulgate plays a supporting role in confirming what appears to be the original Hebrew reading, though the MT remains instructive as the basis from which this correction is proposed.

Example 2: Deuteronomy 32:8 — “Sons of Israel” or “Sons of God”?

The Masoretic Text reads “He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel” (בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל). This creates chronological tension, as the division of the nations (Genesis 11) occurred long before the existence of Israel as a people or Jacob as a person.

In contrast, the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QDeut^j) read “sons of God” (בני אלהים), and the Septuagint follows with “angels of God” (angelōn theou). Jerome renders this in the Vulgate as filiis Dei (“sons of God”), showing that he likely had access to a Hebrew Vorlage that reflected the earlier, theologically consistent wording.

Because the DSS represents a Hebrew text older than the Masoretic tradition and the LXX and Vulgate agree independently, this is a rare case where the MT is likely secondary. The cumulative weight of early Hebrew and versional support justifies the textual decision. However, the Vulgate’s rendering alone would not have been sufficient; its agreement with both the Septuagint and pre‑Masoretic Hebrew manuscripts gives it confirmatory strength.

Example 3: Psalm 145:13 — Missing Line in the Acrostic

Psalm 145 is an acrostic psalm, with each verse beginning with successive letters of the Hebrew alphabet. In the Masoretic Text, one line—the verse beginning with the Hebrew letter nun—is missing. This omission is curious, particularly given the precision with which acrostics were typically preserved.

The Septuagint contains the missing verse: “The Lord is faithful in all His words and gracious in all His works.” The Syriac Peshitta and one Dead Sea Scroll manuscript (11QPs^a) also contain the missing line. Jerome’s Vulgate follows the Septuagint here, including the additional verse: Fidelis Dominus in omnibus verbis suis, et sanctus in omnibus operibus suis.

While the MT lacks the line, the widespread attestation in ancient sources including the LXX, Syriac, DSS, and Vulgate strongly suggests the line was accidentally omitted in the MT due to homoeoteleuton—a scribal error caused by similar endings. The presence of the missing verse in these diverse sources justifies its restoration in modern translations. The Vulgate here again affirms the reading already justified by stronger ancient textual evidence.

Example 4: Isaiah 53:11 — “He shall see light”

In Isaiah 53:11, the MT reads: “He shall see… and be satisfied,” with the object of what He sees left ambiguous. The Septuagint and 1QIsa^a (Great Isaiah Scroll from Qumran) both read “He shall see the light,” i.e., “He shall see the light and be satisfied,” implying resurrection or restoration after suffering.

Jerome’s Vulgate preserves the longer reading: videbit lucem et saturabitur (“He shall see light and be satisfied”). Although Jerome translated from the Hebrew, his alignment with the reading preserved in the DSS and LXX suggests his Vorlage may have contained the same reading or he considered the variant authentic.

The addition of “light” clarifies the passage without altering its theology, and the agreement among LXX, DSS, and the Vulgate presents compelling evidence of a likely omission in the MT. While the MT still serves as the base text, this variant illustrates the Vulgate’s use in confirming a reading already established by superior witnesses.

The Vulgate as a Confirming Voice

In all these cases, the Vulgate does not initiate any textual emendation but serves to affirm what is already strongly suggested by older Hebrew manuscripts (DSS), the Septuagint, or the Syriac Peshitta. This is the proper role of the Vulgate in textual criticism. Jerome’s efforts, though impressive and often reflective of an early Hebrew text, must be weighed cautiously and never override the Masoretic Text unless supported by stronger and older sources.

When the Vulgate agrees with both the Septuagint and either the DSS or Peshitta—especially in places where the MT appears difficult, structurally flawed, or contextually implausible—it serves as a valuable secondary witness. However, its status remains that of a version, not a primary text, and it must never be treated as decisive in textual decisions. Only when the burden of proof is met through multiple lines of ancient evidence should a departure from the MT be considered valid in reconstructing the original wording of the Old Testament.

Weighing Manuscripts to Determine the Original Words

The primary weight of external evidence generally goes to the original language manuscripts, and the Codex Leningrad B 19A and the Aleppo Codex are almost always preferred. In Old Testament Textual Criticism, the Masoretic text is our starting point and should only be abandoned as a last resort. While it is true that the Masoretic Text is not perfect, there needs to be a heavy burden of proof if we are to go with an alternative reading. All of the evidence needs to be examined before concluding that a reading in the Masoretic Text is corrupt. The Septuagint continues to be very much important today and is used by textual scholars to help uncover copyists’ errors that might have crept into the Hebrew manuscripts either intentionally or unintentionally. However, it cannot do it alone without the support of other sources. There are a number of times when you might have the Syriac, Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, Aramaic Targums, and the Vulgate that are at odds with the Masoretic Text; the preferred choice should not be the MT.

Initially, the Septuagint (LXX) was viewed by the Jews as inspired by God, equal to the Hebrew Scriptures. However, in the first century C.E., the Christians adopted the Septuagint in their churches. It was used by the Christians in their evangelism to make disciples and to debate the Jews on Jesus being the long-awaited Messiah. Soon, the Jews began to look at the Septuagint with suspicion. This resulted in the Jews of the second century C.E. abandoning the Septuagint and returning to the Hebrew Scriptures. This has proved to be beneficial for the textual scholar and translator. In the second century C.E., other Greek translations of the Septuagint were produced. We have, for example, LXX^Aq Aquila, LXX^Sym Symmachus, and LXX^Th Theodotion. The consonantal text of the Hebrew Scriptures became the standard text between the first and second centuries C.E. However, textual variants still continued until the Masoretes and the Masoretic text. However, scribes taking liberties by altering the text was no longer the case, as was true of the previous period of the Sopherim. The scribes who copied the Hebrew Scriptures from the time of Ezra down to the time of Jesus were called Sopherim, i.e., scribes.

From the 6th century C.E. to the 10th century C.E., we have the Masoretes, groups of extraordinary Jewish scribe-scholars. The Masoretes were very much concerned with the accurate transmission of each word, even each letter, of the text they were copying. Accuracy was of supreme importance; therefore, the Masoretes used the side margins of each page to inform others of deliberate or inadvertent changes in the text by past copyists. The Masoretes also use these marginal notes for other reasons as well, such as unusual word forms and combinations. They even marked how frequently they occurred within a book or even the whole Hebrew Old Testament. Of course, marginal spaces were very limited, so they used abbreviated code. They also formed a cross-checking tool where they would mark the middle word and letter of certain books. Their push for accuracy moved them to go so far as to count every letter of the Hebrew Old Testament.

In the Masoretic text, we find notes in the side margins, which are known as the Small Masora. There are also notes in the top margin, which are referred to as the Large Masora. Any other notes placed elsewhere within the text are called the Final Masora. The Masoretes used the notes in the top and bottom margins to record more extensive notes, comments concerning the abbreviated notes in the side margins. This enabled them to be able to cross-check their work. We must remember that there were no numbered verses at this time, and they had no Bible concordances. One might wonder how the Masoretes could refer to different parts of the Hebrew text to have an effective cross-checking system. They would list part of a parallel verse in the top and bottom margins to remind them of where the word(s) indicated were found. Because they were dealing with limited space, they often could only list one word to remind them where each parallel verse could be found. To have an effective cross-reference system by way of these marginal notes, the Masoretes would literally have to have memorized the entire Hebrew Bible.

You May Also Enjoy

Printed and Scholarly Editions of the Hebrew Bible Text

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS