Did Latin Vulgate influence KJV?

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Logos1560, May 11, 2005.

  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Did the Latin Vulgate and the Septuagint influence any renderings in the KJV?

    Edward Hills wrote: "Sometimes also the influence of the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate is discernible in the King James Old Testament" (KJV DEFENDED, p. 223).
     
  2. PASTOR MHG

    PASTOR MHG
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    0
    It appears that it has based on the testimony of Hills and others. What is your point? I believe we have had this discussion before in another topic. My position would remain...why would this be a problem as long as the LV was translated correctly where it influenced the AV.

    TCassidy also added that Jerome was a very capable scolar and much of his work is very good.

    Max
     
  3. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Better to have the Latin Vulgate influence a Bible translation, than the text that the majority of the modern versions are based on. At least Jerome had a very high regard for Scripture, whereas the likes of Metzger, Aland, Black, Nestle, Wikgren and Martini, are liberal "scholars", most of whom question the Infallibility and ultimate Authority of the Bible.
     
  4. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
  5. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Are you being consistent when you complain about Roman Catholic influence on modern versions and yet accept Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate influence on the KJV?

    Has it been shown that the Latin Vulgate's "unicornis" was translated correctly?

    Concerning Leviticus 11:18, Robert Gell (1595-1665), who had been chaplain to KJV translator George Abbot, claimed that "our [KJV] translators render the word 'a swan, following herein Jerome's authority" (ESSAY TOWARD THE AMENDMENT OF THE LAST ENGLISH-TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE, p. 270). Gell confirmed that many scholars in his day and earlier did not reckon the swan to be among the unclean fowls (pp. 272-273).

    James Carleton wrote: "One cannot but be struck by the number of words which have come into the Authorized Version from the Vulgate through the medium of the Rhemish New Testament" (PART OF THE RHEIMS IN THE MAKING OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE, p. 32).
     
  6. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't get it. Why is it assumed that the Vulgate influenced the KJV just because they both are translated similarly in certain passages?

    As has been pointed out in a different thread;

    This is like assuming that 25 of 30 students cheated from each other just because they got similar answers on a test.

    Give it a rest. Are you guys sure you are not trying to discredit the KJV?


    In HIS service;
    Jim
     
  7. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is a very active determination today, starting from the publishing houses of the modern versions, to Joe in the street, to damage the authority of the King James Version. This clearly is the work of the enemy, as he sees the threat of this version in the Church as being very real. More and more Churches are returning to the trusted KJV. Most of the guys on this board no little or nothing about textual matters, but yet post here as authorities in the field! The credability and reliability of the men who worked on the texts that are the basis of the MV's don't seem to bother supporters of these versions as can be seen on this board. The fact that people can question whether the Bible is indeed Inspired by God, and yet produce a "translation" of the Bible that is accepted by a blind faith, is very worrying. It is no wonder that there is no much heresy in the Church today.
     
  8. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    This clearly is the work of the enemy, as he sees the threat of this version in the Church as being very real.

    :rolleyes:

    I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

    Hail Satan, and pass me an NIV! Glory hallelujah!

    The credability and reliability of the men who worked on the texts that are the basis of the MV's don't seem to bother supporters of these versions as can be seen on this board.

    Yeah, we should just pitch all our textbooks and just take an anonymous authority on some Web board on his ipse dixit, right?

    What gets your goat isn't that we don't think critically. It's that we do.

    You gotta laugh. [​IMG]
     
  9. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    It is not a mere assumption. It is a valid observation based on the known evidence. There are several indirect and even direct ways that the KJV was influenced by the Latin Vulgate. Martin Luther made some use of the Latin Vulgate in the making of his German Bible, and Luther's Bible influenced William Tyndale in his translating, and Tyndale was an important influence on the KJV. Miles Coverdale also consulted the Latin Vulgate in his translating,
    and the 1535 Coverdale's Bible is one of the earlier English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision. There is also evidence that the KJV took some renderings from the 1582 Rheims N. T, which was translated from the Latin Vulgate. In such ways, the KJV could be indirectly influenced by the Latin Vulgate without even directly consulting it.

    It is clear that many if not all of the KJV translators had direct knowledge of the Latin Vulgate. Many of the KJV translators may have had greater knowledge of the Latin language than they did of Greek or Hebrew. In that day, the Latin Vulgate was the most commonly read Bible of those who knew Latin. KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes took the text of his sermons from the Latin Vulgate. KJV translator John Bois was known for his defence of the Latin Vulgate.
    The standard reference work THE DICTIONARY OF NATIONAL BIOGRAPHY noted that Bois wrote a manuscript that "consists of brief critical notes, in which the renderings of the Vulgate are in the main defended, but Bois frequently proposes more exact translations of his own, both Latin and English" (p. 775). John M'Clintock confirmed that Bois' only published work was "a vindication of the Vulgate version of the New Testament" (CYCLOPAEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL, AND ECCLESIASTICAL LITERATURE, Vol. I, p. 869). Allibone quoted Orme as writing the following about John Bois: "his defences of the Latin Vulgate are often ingenious and important" (CRITICAL DICTIONARY OF ENGLISH LITERATURE, p. 233).

    While the KJV translators disagreed with or refuted the Latin Vulgate-only view of their day, they did not say that they did not consult or make any use of the Latin Vulgate. They even refer favorably to or quote Jerome in their preface to the 1611. In their preface, they indicated that they consulted Latin translators, one of which would include Jerome.

    You seem to be the one that is seeking to assume that the KJV was not influenced by the Latin Vulgate in spite of all the known evidence
    of that influence.
     
  10. superdave

    superdave
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,055
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is not exactly what is being alleged, at least from what I am seeing.

    The only case that can be made for the influence of the Vulgate on the KJV can be made if in certain passages, the KJV rendering more closely resembles that of the Vulgate than it does its own underlying texts. I have not seen definitive proof of that, but most of these threads are simply a reaction against the anti-(pick a version) rhetoric that is thrown around on this board by some of the KJV only members. I am definitely not KJVO, but I would not discredit it as I personally use it, and feel that it is among the best translations we have as it is faithful to its underlying texts. There are a few translations that can be held to that standard. Many that cannot.

    If the rhetoric stopped on both sides of the versions issue, we could probably have a reasonable discussion about the validity of the versions that have been faithfully translated from their supporting manuscripts, and the realities of the textual variants that we do see in the thousands of manuscripts that are in agreement to an amazing degree, and the incredible care that has been taken in several the modern versions (Of which the KJV is one of the first)
     
  11. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ramson, all you are doing here is making a fool of yourself, as you do not know what you are talking about.
     
  12. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    "Pygarg" (Deut. 14:5) seems to have come from the Latin Vulgate's rendering "pygargus" or the Greek LXX's rendering "pygargos" or both.

    "Lucifer" (Isa. 14:12) comes directly from the Latin Vulgate or indirectly from the Latin Vulgate thru the other pre-1611 English Bibles that took it from the Vulgate. The 1380's Wycliffe's Bible made from the Latin Vulgate was
    the first to introduce the Latin word "lucifer" as its rendering at Isaiah 14:12.
     
  13. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ramson, all you are doing here is making a fool of yourself, as you do not know what you are talking about.

    [​IMG]
     
  14. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    KJV-only author D. A. Waite claimed: "The text which underlies our King James Bible was a text that Dr. Frederick Scrivener put out" (CENTRAL SEMINARY REFUTED, p. 74).

    Now notice what the editor of this Greek text wrote.

    In the preface to the first edition of his Greek text, F. H. A. Scrivener wrote: "In some places the Authorized Version corresponds but loosely with any form of the Greek original, while it exactly follows the Latin Vulgate" (NEW TESTAMENT IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK, p. ix).
     
  15. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Glenn Conjurske, a Baptist pastor and KJV defender, wrote: "There are places where the King James Version follows the Latin Vulgate instead of the Greek, as, for example, where it reads 'fold' instead of 'flock' in John 10:16"
    (OLDE PATHS, July, 1992, p. 154).

    In the KJV, two different Greek words are translated "fold" in John 10:16. A. T. Robertson pointed out that there is a distinction made by Jesus between 'aule' [fold] and 'poimne' [flock]
    (WORD PICTURES, V, p. 181). Robertson added that the Latin Vulgate's use of one Latin word for these two Greek words "confused this distinction" and "helped Roman Catholic assumptions" (p. 181).
    Marvin Vincent also wrote: "It will readily be seen that the incorrect rendering fostered by the carelessness or the mistake of some of the Western fathers, and by the Vulgate, which renders both words by ovile, fold, has been in the interest of Romish claims" (WORD STUDIES, II, p. 194).

    William Tyndale had kept the difference of meaning between the two Greek words by translating the second Greek word in this verse (poimne) as "flock." The KJV translators themselves also translated this Greek word 'poimne' as "flock" at some other verses (Matt. 26:31, Luke 2:8, 1 Cor. 9:7).
     
  16. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Was the Latin Vulgate translated correctly at John 10:16?
     
  17. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,137
    Likes Received:
    1,307
    Don't you ever get tired of talking to yourself?
     

Share This Page

Loading...