“Human, I think what JCB is getting at here is the idea that the Vulgate is authoritative”
The Vulgate is authoritative because of the authority of the magisterium. The magisterium decided which books should be in scripture, and the list they came up with is the same list used in the Vulgate in the 4th century, and the same list at Trent.
So it’s not the same argument as the King James, as it stems from the argument that the magisterium of the church has the ultimate authority.
It’s not liable to the same critique as the King James version either, which rests on inspiration.
They came up with a list, but that doesn’t mean the documents themselves did not date from far earlier times, and it doesn’t mean that they possessed the best versions of the manuscripts either. I affirm the written word as it has been handled by conscientious Christians to be robust. It withstands the kind of scribal glosses and errors it has seen in such hands and still remains enveloped in the Holy Spirit power. This means we can USE the Vulgate. This doesn’t mean the Vulgate is the very best version.
King James supposed primacy is also about “chain of hands” as best I understand it. It was very widely used in English speaking Protestant Christendom. It is kind of a Protestant Vulgate.