Opps...I forgot to add this to my last post to you:
Wisdom of Solomon was one of the Apocrypha books that Jerome refused to translate in his Latin Version of the OT. It was added many decades after Jerome died. So, that verse I questioned was not from his pen; and thusly, it doesn't make any sense to say he "may" have had a codex that is now missing. I don't think I misrepresented what history records concerning Jerome's translation project that Bishop Damasus asked him to do. What say you?
Not so; he thought it shouldn't be canonical, but he did translate it.
Jerome in his prologues[5] describes a canon which excludes the deuterocanonical books, possibly excepting Baruch.[6] However, Jerome's Vulgate did include the deuterocanonical books as well as apocrypha. He referred to them as scriptural and quoted from them despite describing them as "not in the canon". In his prologue to Judith, without using the word canon, he mentioned that Judith was held to be scriptural by the First Council of Nicaea.[7] In his reply to Rufinus, he stoutly defended the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel even though the Jews of his day did not:
What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the Story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us. (Against Rufinus, 11:33 [AD 402]).Thus Jerome acknowledged the principle by which the canon was settled—the judgment of the Church, rather than his own judgment or the judgment of Jews.