Vulgate

Vulgate

The Vulgate is the Latin version of the Bible prepared by St. Jerome (382-404), at the request of Pope St. Damasus I.

He translated the Old Testament directly from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, and revised the existing Latin text of the New Testament.

“Vulgate” means “common” or “popular”, since Latin was the popular language in Europe at the time. This translation was done in a language they could understand. Very few knew how to read.

The Vulgate was used through the centuries and was declared the official Latin text of the Bible for Catholics by the Council of Trent (1545-63).

It was from the Vulgate that almost all English Catholic translations were made until the middle of the 20th century, when scholars began to use original sources.

It remained the official Latin text of the Bible for the Catholic Church until Pope John Paul II replaced it with the New Vulgate in 1979.

Catholic Christians and non-Catholic Christians believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. This belief is based on their acceptance of the fact that the Catholic Church had the authority to declare which books were inspired and should be included in the list of sacred books or “Canon”, and which should not be included.

The Catholic Church knew it had this authority and guidance because:

  1. “And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever - the Spirit of truth” (John 14:16-17)

  2. “However, when He, the Spirit of Truth, as come, He will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13)

  3. “… I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20)

  4. “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:19)

  5. “… it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets” (Ephesians 3:5)

  6. “… the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15)

For more than 1500 years the Catholic Church has accepted and taught that these 73 books of the Bible are inspired and make up the list of sacred books.

Jesus gave His Apostles and Church the gift of the Holy Spirit when He said. “… ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’” (John 20:22).

Jesus also said, “However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13).

It is impossible that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, would lead the Church in an error for 1900 years. Such a promise was made to the Church alone.

Martin Luther decided to reject that and to accept the Hebrew Bible since it did not have the 2nd Book of Maccabees which says, “It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sin.” (2 Maccabees 12:46 NAB).

Luther did not agree with praying for the dead. He did not accept seven books of the Old Testament, and also did not accept these New Testament books: Hebrews, 2 John, 3 John, James, Jude, 2 Peter and Revelation. These books contained teachings which did not agree with his teaching.

By the year 1700, however, Lutheran scholars had restored these books to the New Testament. We must remember that Jesus promised that His Spirit would be with His Church (John 14:11-12) and that the Spirit of Truth would guide the Church into all truth (John 16:13). Paul said, “… which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15).

So the Spirit of Truth guides the Church in all truth, not an individual person.

[a href=“http://photobucket.com” target="_blank"][a href=“http://photobucket.com” target="_blank"][a href=“http://photobucket.com” target="_blank"][/a]

gerom say that the OT was corrupted

Preface to the Book of Hebrew Questions.

Written a.d. 388. For the scope and character of this work, see Prolegomena.

“The53795379

Hor. Odes II., x. 19, 20.
highest peaks invoke

The lightning’s stroke.”

But I am in a corner, remote from the city and the forum, and the wranglings of crowded courts; yet, even so (as Quintilian says) ill-will has sought me out. Therefore, I beseech the reader,

“If53805380

Virgil, Ec., vi. 10.
one there be, if one,

Who, rapt by strong desire, these lines shall read,”

not to expect eloquence or oratorical grace in those Books of Hebrew Questions, which I propose to write on all the sacred books; but rather, that he should himself answer my detractors for me, and tell them that a work of a new kind can claim some indulgence. I am poor and of low estate; I neither possess riches nor do I think it right to accept them if they are offered me; and, similarly, let me tell them that it is impossible for them to have the riches of Christ, that is, the knowledge of the Scriptures, and the world’s riches as well. It will be my simple aim, therefore, first, to point out the mistakes of those who suspect some fault in the Hebrew Scriptures, and, secondly, to correct the faults, which evidently teem in the Greek and Latin copies, by a reference to the original authority; and, further, to explain the etymology of things, names, and countries, when it is not apparent from the sound of the Latin words, by giving a paraphrase in the vulgar tongue. To enable the student more easily to take note of these emendations, I propose, in the first place, to set out the true53815381

Ipsa testimonia. This is what he calls in other places Hebraica veritas. Jerome was right in the main in correcting the LXX, and other Greek versions by the Hebrew. He was not aware (as has been since made clear) that there are various readings in the Hebrew itself, and that these may sometimes be corrected by the LXX., which was made from older mss.
reading itself, as I am now able to do, and then, by bringing the later readings into comparison with it, to53825382

That is, by the obeli (†), to show what has been left out, and the asterisk (*), to show what has been inserted.
indicate what has been omitted or added or altered
. It is not my purpose, as snarling ill-will pretends, to convict the LXX. of error, nor do I look upon my own labour as a disparagement of theirs. The fact is that they, since their work was undertaken for King Ptolemy of Alexandria, did not choose to bring to light all the mysteries which the sacred writings contain, and especially those which give the promise of the advent of Christ, for fear that he who held the Jews in esteem because they were believed to worship one God, would come to think that they worshipped a second. But we find that the Evangelists, and even our Lord and Saviour, and the Apostle Paul, also, bring forward many citations as coming from the Old Testament which are not contained in our copies; and on these I shall dilate more fully in their proper 487places. But it is clear from this fact that those are the best mss. which most correspond with the authoritative words of the New Testament. Add to this that Josephus, who gives the story of the Seventy Translators, reports them as translating only the five books of Moses; and we also acknowledge that these are more in harmony with the Hebrew than the rest. And, further, those who afterward came into the field as translators—I mean Aquila and Symmachus and Theodotion—give a version very different from that which we use.53835383

That is, from the copies of the LXX. commonly used in the fourth century.

Saint Jeromes concern was not upheld by the Magisterium of the Church so its irrelivent. It was not on his authority alone to make any such claim.

Saint Jerome translated the Vulgate from Greek. He didn’t corrupt it.

I read this as what he said:
“It is not my purpose, as snarling ill-will pretends, to convict the LXX. of error, nor do I look upon my own labour as a disparagement of theirs.”

Paca and all glory to Isa.

so you say that jerome lied? did he believe in corruption of OT?then he is unbeliever according to christianity right?
what if a christian believed that bible is corrupted does he remain christian? ,i love to learn about comparative religions :slight_smile:

Then read here:

muhammadanism.com/Scriptures/

and try the Katibs.

Mohamed, had incessantly refused to appoint a deputy or caliph to take over after his death because he thought Islam was a religion, not a state. He had also forbidden his disciples from compiling verses revealed to him into a book and from recording his doings and sayings into a body of rules and laws. He feared that the new religion could be hijacked, forged, altered, corrupted, used or abused in the process, as it is today.

Corrupt, avaricious, power-hungry and blood-thirsty disciples of Mohamed started a bloody putsch immediately after the prophet died which resulted in their hijacking Islam, turning it into a state where they proclaimed themselves caliphs (undisputed executors of Allah’s will on earth).

thats not authorized source of islam ,islam is taken from quran and sunnah **only** why do you talk about islam ?dont you have answer to my question? you can open new thread about authority of quran and sunnah :slight_smile:

This statement is false and you should research your facts before stating such.
It is a know fact that Luther never left the NT books you state out of any Bible. He had some questions, doubts on certain books but every one of them were retained in the Bible he translated, and each book was stated in his preface as inspired by God.

The OT books you state were never in the old Hebrew Bible. Even Catholic historian would not dispute this fact as I have just stated them.

It is great to back up your statement but you do not need to make of FACTS and that what you have done. I hope your answer will be that you just had the wrong information.

God Bless

Dave Armstrong says:

Luther Suppresses Catholic Bibles (!)
Janssen writes of a hypocritical instance of Luther’s censorship (1529):

Luther . . . set his pen in motion concerning this Catholic translation of the Bible. ‘The freedom of the Word,’ which he claimed for himself, was not to be accorded to his opponent Emser . . . When . . . he learnt that Emser’s translation . . . was to be printed . . . at Rostock, he not only appealed himself to his follower, Duke Henry of Mecklenburg, with the request that ‘for the glory of the evangel of Christ and the salvation of all souls’ he would put a stop to this printing, but he also worked on the councillors of the Elector of Saxony to support his action. He denied the right and the power of the Catholic authorities to inhibit his books; on the other hand he invoked the arm of the secular authorities against all writings that were displeasing to him.
(Janssen, XIV, 503-504)

  1. Luther and Melanchthon Suppress Swiss and Anabaptist Books
    When the controversy on the Lord’s Supper was started at Wittenberg, the utmost precautions were taken to suppress the writings of the Swiss Reformed theologians and of the German preachers who shared the latter’s views. At the instigation of Luther and Melanchthon there was issued, in 1528, by the Elector John of Saxony, an edict to the following effect:

Books and pamphlets (of the Anabaptists, Sacramentarians, etc.) must not be allowed to be bought or sold or read . . . also those who are aware of such breaches of the orders laid down herein, and do not give information, shall be punished by loss of life and property.
(Janssen, XIV, 232-233; BR, IV, 549)

Melanchthon demanded in the most severe and comprehensive manner the censure and suppression of all books that were hindering to Lutheran teaching. The writings of Zwingli and the Zwinglians were placed formally on the Index at Wittenberg.
(Janssen, XIV, 504; cf. Durant, 424)

  1. Protestant Universities
    Moreover, antagonism had also grown up among the Protestant universities, and one reproached the other with being the fosterer and begetter of false doctrine . . . Wittenberg itself, but lately regarded as the birthplace of a new revelation and of the newly awakened Church of Christ, in 1567 was declared to be a ‘stinking cesspool of the devil.’
    (Janssen, XIV, 231-232)

  2. Various Protestant Cities and Areas
    At Strassburg Catholic writings were suppressed as early as 1524 . . . The Council at Frankfort-on-the-Main exercised . . . strict censorship . . . At Rostock, in 1532, the printer of the Brethren of the Common Life was sent to prison, because he had used his printing press to the disadvantage of Protestantism.
    (Janssen, XIV, 502)

Wherever the prince, according to old Byzantine fashion, thought himself a theologian, he managed the censorship in person.

(Janssen, XIV, 233)

Instances could, of course, be multiplied, but the above examples suffice to illustrate the general Protestant hostility to a free press.

“Corrupted” in scholarly terms, does not mean “deliberately mutilated” or re-written by ill will or with an intent to change the text. It means that fragments may have been incorrectly copied or that pieces may have or broken off a page or scroll.

With the recovery of untouched of ancient manuscripts over the past several hundred years (including the spectacular find at Qumran), it has been possible, by matching the variants, to reconstruct what amounts to the autograph of the O.T. text.

Now either you are just ignorant about this or you purposely posted the above in your usual attempt to destroy Christianity. To most here your motive is obvious…

The discussion you posted is about the differences between the *Septuagint and the *Masoretic OT.

Septuagint - This version of the OT was translated in to Greek in about the year 300 BC. Greek was the common language used by all Jews outside of Jerusalem. Since most Jews did not live in Jerusalem this is the OT used by most Jews.

Masoretic - In the year 90 A.D. the Jews held a council which reworked the OT. One of the things they did was to remove the books which were the strongest proof that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. Those books that they removed we now call the Apocrypha.

Jesus and the Apostle Paul used the Septuagint. If Jesus did not state that the text was wrong, it is reasonable to assume that the correct OT is the Septuagint.

As the quote you gave says, Jesus and the Apostle Paul used the Septuagint. So of course they quoted things that were not in the Masoretic, because they were removed from the Masoretic.
The issue of the quote you posted is that St. Jerome used both the *Septuagint AND the *Masoretic as basis for his translation. Since the Masoretic is a newer and altered version of the OT many Catholics wondered why St. Jerome did this. There were apparently even riots in the streets at the time protesting his using the Masoretic because it had so many mistakes and omissions from it.

Your post does not show that there is a problem with the Christian bible. What it shows is that the Jews decided to do some cutting of their text to prove that Jesus was neither a prophet nor the Messiah.

***see its true ***
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vii.ii.v.html
newadvent.org/fathers/3002.htm

To reiterate from my post above, St. Jerome was talking about the differences between the Septuagint and the newer vision of the OT, the Masoretic. He was comparing the OT used by Jesus and the one used by Jews after their council in 90 AD.

Catholics use the Septuagint as did Jesus.

Read Luther’s Works it is only 63 Volumes. Not once did Luther leave out any books of the NT and he only left out the OT books that were not in the original Hebrew Bible.
These are facts that are not disputed by any historian even Catholic historians.

God Bless

Uh, that was from the Qur’an. Are you now denying the Qur’an because the Qur’an contradicts what you are saying? The Qur’an states very clearly that the God has guarded, watched over, and preserved the Scriptures that were written before the Qur’an.

5.46. Later, in the train (of the prophets), We sent Jesus, son of Mary, confirming the Torah which had been (sent down) before him, and gave him the Gospel containing guidance and light, which corroborated the earlier Torah, a guidance and warning for those who preserve themselves from evil and follow the straight path.

5.47. Let the people of the Gospel judge by what has been revealed in it by God. And those who do not judge in accordance with what God has revealed are transgressors.

5.48. And to you We have revealed the Book containing the truth, confirming the earlier revelations, and preserving them (from change and corruption). So judge between them by what has been revealed by God, and do not follow their whims, side-stepping the truth that has reached you. To each of you We have given a law and a way and a pattern of life. If God had pleased He could surely have made you one people (professing one faith). But He wished to try and test you by that which He gave you. So try to excel in good deeds. To Him will you all return in the end, when He will tell you of what you were at variance.

10:64 For them are glad tidings, in the life of the present and in the Hereafter; no change can there be in the words of Allah. This is indeed the supreme felicity.

Yea, I know his personal version didnt omit them. Just his doctrines did. That was an old article saved on my comp. I didnt see that at the end. Its a moot point just the same.

The ‘Hebrew bible’ that you are talking about is the
Masoretic - In the year 90 A.D. the Jews held a council which reworked the OT. One of the things they did was to remove the books which were the strongest proof that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. Those books that they removed we now call the Apocrypha.

Jesus used the Septuagint - This version of the OT was translated in to Greek in about the year 300 BC. Greek was the common language used by all Jews outside of Jerusalem. Since most Jews did not live in Jerusalem this is the OT used by most Jews.

The books were in the Septuagint, the one that Jesus used. Are you saying that Jesus did not know that he was using the wrong versino of the OT? Guess He forgot to check with Martin Luther, darn… Martin Luther was not even around yet. Waht is a Messiah to do…

Martin Luther used a copy of that OT that was written in Hebrew years after the death of Jesus.

can you prove that jews ommitted ?

Your sarcasm is childish grow up

The Jews in Palestine operated with this “canon” of the Old Testament (22 scrolls = our 39 books). Appended to the 22 scrolls were a number of books written after the time of Malachi and Ezra and Nehemiah. In time there were fourteen such books (1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Portions in Esther, The Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus which was also known as Sirach, Baruch, The Prayer of Manasses, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Song of the three Holy Children, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon). The Jews referred to such books as “outside books,” kept them in a separate case, and never read them in a public meeting or worship. Jews in the Diaspora from about the 3rd century B.C. onward had the Old Testament translated into Greek because they and their children were no longer speaking Hebrew. These fourteen books were translated and attached to the Old Testament canon in the translation that became known as the Septuagint. The rabbinic school at Jamnia (about 90 A.D.) declared that the 22 scrolls (our 39 books) and only those were the Holy Scriptures, thus excluding the Apocrypha.

Although many early Christian accepted the books of the Septuagint (including the Apocrypha), Athanasius (c. 296-373) distinguished between the Old Testament and the Apocrypha. This distinction prevailed in the Eastern Church. About 400 Jerome, one of the few of his day who understood the Hebrew language, recognized that the Apocrypha was not included in the Hebrew Scriptures. However, Augustine (354-439) persuaded his colleagues in three synods held in North Africa to make the Septuagint with the Apocrypha the standard version of the Old Testament. Pope Innocent I issued a decree saying the same thing in 403 A.D. At the time of the Reformation the reformers also made a distinction between the 39 books of the Old Testament and the Apocrypha. They said that the Apocrypha were good books to read but were not to be put on the same level as Scripture

i will not talk just read
5: 41. O Messenger (Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم)! Let not those who hurry to fall into disbelief grieve you, of such who say: “We believe” with their mouths but their hearts have no faith. And of the Jews are men who listen much and eagerly to lies - listen to others who have not come to you. They change the words from their places; they say, “If you are given this, take it, but if you are not given this, then beware!” And whomsoever Allâh wants to put in Al-Fitnah [error, because of his rejecting of Faith], you can do nothing for him against Allâh. Those are the ones whose hearts Allâh does not want to purify (from disbelief and hypocrisy); for them there is a disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter a great torment.

5.46. Later, in the train (of the prophets), We sent Jesus, son of Mary, confirming the Torah which had been (sent down) before him, and gave him the Gospel containing guidance and light, which corroborated the earlier Torah, a guidance and warning for those who preserve themselves from evil and follow the straight path.

that talk about non corrupted torah and gospel(.) not gospel((s))

5.47. Let the people of the Gospel judge by what has been revealed in it by God. And those who do not judge in accordance with what God has revealed are transgressors.

yes uptill now we believe that bible still contain God word which prove that it was corrupted and prove that christ is servant of God and messanger of God

5.48. And to you We have revealed the Book containing the truth, confirming the earlier revelations, and preserving them (from change and corruption). So judge between them by what has been revealed by God, and do not follow their whims, side-stepping the truth that has reached you. To each of you We have given a law and a way and a pattern of life. If God had pleased He could surely have made you one people (professing one faith). But He wished to try and test you by that which He gave you. So try to excel in good deeds. To Him will you all return in the end, when He will tell you of what you were at variance.

the authorized verse is that
5: 48. And We have sent down to you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) the Book (this Qur’ân) in truth, confirming the Scripture that came before it and Muhaymin (trustworthy in highness and a witness) over it (old Scriptures)[2]. So judge among them by what Allâh has revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging away from the truth that has come to you. To each among you, We have prescribed a law and a clear way. If Allâh had willed, He would have made you one nation, but that (He) may test you in what He has given you; so compete in good deeds. The return of you (all) is to Allâh; then He will inform you about that in which you used to differ.

10:64 For them are glad tidings, in the life of the present and in the Hereafter; no change can there be in the words of Allah. This is indeed the supreme felicity.

10: 63. Those who believed (in the Oneness of Allâh - Islâmic Monotheism), and used to fear Allâh much (by abstaining from evil deeds and sins and by doing righteous deeds).

 64. For them are glad tidings, in the life of the present world[2] (i.e. through a righteous dream seen by the person himself or shown to others), and in the Hereafter. No change can there be in the Words of Allâh. This is indeed the supreme success.

dont take verses out of context ,let us see
its meaning the words here talk about convenant from allah ,like when i say i give you my word meaning i promise you
this convenant is 10: 64. For them are glad tidings, in the life of the present world[2] (i.e. through a righteous dream seen by the person himself or shown to others), and in the Hereafter. No change can there be in the Words of Allâh. This is indeed the supreme success.
so words here talk about convenants like when i say “i give you my word”

His doctrine did not either. Have you ever read Luther’s writings on the Bible?
It says nothing of the things you say.
Many people quote his tableside talks with people he had over at his home. People would take notes on chats they had at his home. These were later written into papers. Imagine if I used what was said on these threads as Catholic Church doctrine to other people. That would not be fair representation of the Catholic Church.
Read his writing if you want to know his doctrines.
That is not to say Luther wrote something’s that the Lutheran Church and myself do not agree with.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.