Well, it's a minor point really, and not uncommon.Dan Monroe wrote:your point about Jerome. ... no idea what texts he was working from.
Generally speaking, even if a scholarly undertaking could reconstruct the autograph - on the assumption that it ever existed as one manuscript - of any one or other of the works in the New Testament, that autograph would not have been the manuscript used by anyone at any point in the history of the text's useage except in the writing and reading of that particular autograph. That is particularly true of patristic studies - which I take as the mileu out of which the Vulgate you mentioned emerged - where the Greek of the New (or Old) Testament is "freely" adapted to fit the grammar and sense of the sermon that those Church Fathers are delivering (or writing). The "Bible" (version) of a given authour is not going to be exactly the SBL's version that you are using as a standard - and unfortunately there is often an assumption that the latest (considered "best" scholarly) text, which is then aplied anachronistically as a universal standard for all writers at all times - both after the loss of a supposed autograph and before the collation of the reconstructed text, and in areas where a particular manuscript tradition never had much presence. Such an approach does simplify things, but the simplification introduces errors of perception.