Sixtus V had prefixed a Bull to his edition, declaring that it must be held as °the true, lawful, authentic and undoubted° version of the Scriptures; he forbade anyone, under penalty of excommunication, to print a clif fere.nt edition of the Vulgate. This prohibition was also contained in the Clementine Bull. The effect of it was to put an end to the intolerable confusion of texts; indirectly, too it is gen erally believed to have impeded tile recovery of the true text of Saint Jerome. Some writers, Catholic and Protestant, have tried to extract from these Bulls a dogma of textual accuracy; this position is stultified by the action of Pope Clement, who recalled the (authentic.° version of Sixtus and published another °authentic° version, differing from the former, it is said, in 3,000 places. The popes consider matters of discipline, but not of dogma, as subject to rtctification. The action of Clement merely constitutes his edition the official Bible of the Church and guarantees its general trustworthiness and its freedom from doctrinal or moral error. The Clementine Vul gate, claimed to be better than any predecessor, but not to be perfect; it will probably give way itself to a more perfect version when modern scholarship shall have arrived at assured re sults.
Value of Vulgate Text.-- Modern scholar ship, however, is far from having settled the exact text either of the Old or of the New Testament and Jerome's version remains one of the best witnesses to the originals, though its value is not uniform throughout. His revision of the gospels, to quote Bishop West cott, °represents the received Greek text of the 4th century, and so far claims a respect, speaking roughly, equal to that of a first-class Greek manuscript.° Jerome, it should be remembered, sought out the best manuscripts of his day; the type of test he followed corre sponds partly to that in greatest favor at present, partly to another now no longer knovm. His revision of the rest of the New Testament was not so thorough and probably let many inaccuracies remain; he himself in his commentary on the Galatians departs at times from the received Latin text In the Old Testament Jerome followed a text almost identical with the Massoretic, and, therefore, of the greatest value. His transla tion shows him to have been 'fa good, but by ne means immaculate, Hebrew scholar.° In gen eral, his work was done with the greatest care and light was constantly sought from learned Jews. Tobias and Judith., however, in whose canonicity he did not believe, were translated hurriedly. Almost all scholars would agree
with the judgment of White, who says, in summing up this matter: ((We may confidently assert that the general standard of the transla tion is a very high one.' Literary Qualities.— The language of the Vulgate was based upon the common con versational Latin of its day, used by all classes of the people; it differed greatly from the literary Latin and contained many words and forms considered archaic or rude. Despite the flavor which this origin frequently gives to the language of the Vulgate, the translation is greatly achnired for its simplicity, clearness, flexibility, force and majesty. In the poetical and prophetic books it is unsurpassed. These fine literary qualities may be attributed to the genius of Jerome; yet they are present also in books which he did not touch. The Latin lan guage, indeed, seems peculiarly adapted to render Hebrew thought and feeling; thus the Vulgate has ever been a favorite with literary men who love both the Bible and the language of Cicero, especially in continental Europe.
English Translations of the Vulgate, The first English translation of the entire Vul gate is commonly attributed to Wyclif (d. 1384). The second is the work of Roman Catholic scholars in exile, who published the New Testament at Rheims. in 1582, and the Old at Douai, in 1609. The Rheims-Douai Version has remained ever since the Bible of English-spealcing Catholics; passing throuph numerous editions, it has lost much of its original roughness and Latin phraseology and approached more closely to the King James Version. Scholars acknowledge its tanxious fidelity? whether in praise or blame, as well a.s its very great influence upon the interpreta tions and vocabulary adopted by the Authorized Version. See Bn3LE; BIBLE, VERSIONS or rim Bibliography.— White's lengthy article, (Vulgate, in Hasting's