New versions latinize the Bible?

Daniell makes several similar observations. In his introduction to a modern-spelling edition of Tyndale's New Testament, David Daniell also noted: "When James I gave his Bible revisers the huge Bishops' Bible as their foundation, which meant that the Vulgate-based Rheims version would be attractive to them, he ensured that a wash of Latinity would be spread over Tyndale's English. The result, and we must assume, the intention, was to create a safer distance between the Scriptures and the people. Though in the general working vocabulary there were more Latinate terms in use by 1611, Latin words and constructions have, as they had then, the ring of Establishment authority, which is not the same as the Koine Greek that Tyndale was translating for the first time" (p. xxiv). Daniell wrote: "For King James to lay down as the foundation of his new version the most Latinate of recent indigenous Bibles was unfortunate indeed, and destroyed the chance of the new version being in the best modern English" (p. xiii). Daniell pointed out: “Those scholars were tied by having, at the King’s command, to base their work on the ill-done, backward-looking, heavily Latinate Bishops’ Bible of 1568 partly because it had no marginal notes” (William Tyndale, p. 344). Daniell also observed: "Appeal to Latin, so characteristic of the Authorised Version, tends to flatten differences, and make one special kind of language for everything, something a little antiquated, a little removed, and feeling therefore, for the New Testament, rather artificially holy" (p. 139).

Others have made similar statesments. David Lawton asserted: “The style of the King James Bible was meant to align the reading of the Bible with the worship of the Church of England; and its slightly old-fashioned language was meant to express the great antiquity of that Church” (Faith, p. 81). In an introduction to an Oxford World’s Classics edition of the KJV, Robert Carroll and Stephen Prickett wrote: “Unlike Tyndale, who had translated the koine Greek of the New Testament into a direct and forceful contemporary vernacular, the language of the new translation [the KJV] was often deliberately archaic and Latinized” (p. xxviii).


The Catholic Rheims New Testament had some influence on the vocabulary of the KJV in that some of its many Latinisms were adopted (Ancestry of Our English Bible, p. 267). Daniell wrote: "Another, more serious, push toward Latinity came from the influence on the [KJV] panels of the extremely Latinate Roman Catholic translation from Rheims" (Tyndale's N. T., p. xiii). Charles Butterworth noted: "There are instances where the Rheims New Testament reads differently from all the preceding versions and yet has been followed later by similar readings in the King James Bible, indicating that the translators of 1611 by no means ignored the work that was done in 1582" (Literary Lineage of the KJV, p. 195). Wally Beebe's Bus Workers Edition of the Open Bible noted: "The New Testament part of this [Rheims] Bible was extensively used by the King James revisers" (p. 1221).


J. R. Dore wrote: "A very considerable number of the Rhemish renderings, which they introduced for the first time, were adopted by the revisers of King James's Bible of 1611" (Old Bibles, p. 303). Butterworth observed that the Rheims version "recalled the thought of the [KJV] translators to the Latin structure of the sentences, which they sometimes preferred to the Greek for clarity's sake, thus reverting to the pattern of Wycliffe or the Coverdale Latin-English Testaments, and forsaking the foundation laid by Tyndale" (Literary Lineage of the KJV, p. 237). In an introductory article on "The English Bible" in The Interpeter's Bible, Allen Wikgren also noted that the Rheims "exerted a considerable influence upon the King James revision, in which many of its Latinisms were adopted" (Vol. I, p. 93). Herbert May confirmed that "some of its [the Rheims] phrases were used by the King James Version translators" (Our English Bible in the Making, p. 47). Benson Bobrick also observed; "From the Rheims New Testament, the translators saw fit to borrow a number of Latinate words" (Wide as the Waters, p. 244). Samuel Fisk also acknowledged that the Rheims had "an influence upon the King James Version" (Calvinistic Paths, p. 74). James Carleton noted: "One cannot but be struck by the large number of words which have come into the Authorized Version from the Vulgate through the medium of the Rhemish New Testament" (Part of Rheims in the Making of the English Bible, p. 32). In his book, Carleton gave charts or comparisons in which he gave the rendering of the early Bibles and then the different rendering of the Rheims and KJV.


It is most likely that the KJV translators obtained their knowledge of the Rheims New Testament from a book by William Fulke which compared the Rheims N. T. side by side with the Bishops'. In his introduction to a 1911 facsimile reprint of the 1611, A. W. Pollard maintained that "probably every reviser of the New Testament for the edition of 1611" possessed a copy of Fulke's book that "was regarded as a standard work on the Protestant side" (p. 23). John Greider observed that “This work [by Fulke] was studied by the translators of the 1611 Bible” (English Bible Translations, p. 316). Peter Thuesen pointed out: “William Fulke’s popular 1589 annotated edition of the Rheims New Testament, though intended as an antidote to popery, in reality had served as the vehicle by which some of the Rhemists’ Latinisms entered the vocabulary of the King James Bible” (In Discordance, p. 62). Even Gail Riplinger confirmed that the KJV translators had Fulke’s book with these verse comparisons, but she seems to have ignored the evidence that they followed some of the renderings of the Rheims (In Awe, p. 536). Instead, she suggested that the translators of the KJV avoided “multi-syllable Latin root-words” (p. 535).


W. F. Moulton stated: "The Rhemish Testament was not even named in the instructions furnished to the translators, but it has left its mark on every page of their work" (History of the English Bible, p. 207). Ward Allen maintained that "the Rheims New Testament furnished to the Synoptic Gospels and Epistles in the A. V. as many revised readings as any other version" (Translating the N. T. Epistles, p. xxv). Allen and Jacobs claimed that the KJV translators "in revising the text of the synoptic Gospels in the Bishops' Bible, owe about one-fourth of their revisions, each, to the Genevan and Rheims New Testaments" (Coming of the King James Gospels, p. 29). About 1 Peter 1:20, Allen noted: “The A. V. shows most markedly here the influence of the Rheims Bible, from which it adopts the verb in composition, the reference of the adverbial modifier to the predicate, the verb manifest, and the prepositional phrase for you” (Translating for King James, p. 18). Concerning 1 Peter 4:9, Allen suggested that “this translation in the A. V. joins the first part of the sentence from the Rheims Bible to the final phrase of the Protestant translations” (p. 30). Allen also observed: "At Col. 2:18, he [KJV translator John Bois] explains that the [KJV] translators were relying upon the example of the Rheims Bible" (pp. 10, 62-63). Thus, the first-hand testimony of a KJV translator acknowledged or confirmed that the KJV was influenced by the Rheims. Opfell observed that the Westminster company (Romans through Jude) "borrowed many Latinate words" from the Rheims (KJB Translators, p. 97). Even KJV defender Edward Hills acknowledged that the 1582 Douai Version influenced the KJV “slightly” (Believing Bible Study, p. 64).


William Norton asserted: “There are many Latin-English words in the Common version [KJV]“ (Translation of the Peshito-Syriac, p. lxxvi). A few examples of the Latin-based renderings from the Rheims in the KJV are the following: clemency [clementia] (Acts 24:4), principal [principalibus] (Acts 25:23), emulation [aemulandum] (Rom. 11:14), malignity [malignitate] (Rom. 1:29), illuminated [illuminati] (Heb. 10:32), sincerity [sinceritate] (2 Cor. 1:12), and incense [incensa] (Rev. 8:3). McClintock noted that the KJV "sometimes uses Latin terms when Saxon were at hand, e. g. cogitation for thought; illuminate for enlightened; matrix for womb; prognosticator for foreteller; terrestrial for earthly; vocation for calling, etc. (Cyclopaedia, I, p. 561).

 

I'm not so sure I can keep up with a discussion
with multiple sylables in words, multiple words in sentences,
multiple sentences per paragraph, and
multiple paragraphs. DUH. :smilewinkgrin:

 

Must be a 'Latin' thing.

It could be worse, I guess. It could be Pig Latin. Or even worse than that, Dog Latin! :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

Don't you mean Igpay Atinlay?

 

Here are some example of the influence of the 1582 Rheims on the KJV:

Luke 6:49 fall of that house (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) ruin of that house (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 9:1 heal (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) cure (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 19:4 wild fig (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) sycomore (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 19:21 strait (Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Great, Whittingham’s, Geneva, Bishops’) hard (Coverdale’s) austere (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 19:22 strait (Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Great, Whittingham’s, Geneva, Bishops’) hard (Coverdale’s) austere (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 19:23 vantage (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) usury (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 21:5 garnished (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) adorned (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 23:19 insurrection (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) sedition (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 23:32 evil doers (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) malefactors (Rheims, KJV)
Luke 23:39 evil doers (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) malefactors (Rheims, KJV)
John 1:31 declared (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) manifested (Rheims) made manifest (KJV)
John 2:11 shewed (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) manifested (Rheims, KJV)
John 6:12 broken meat (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) fragments (Rheims, KJV)
John 9:28 rated (Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, Great, Bishops’)
checked (Whittingham’s, Geneva) reviled (Rheims, KJV)
John 14:22 shew thyself (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) manifest thyself (Rheims, KJV)
John 17:6 declared (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) manifested (Rheims, KJV)
John 18:30 evil doer (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) malefactor (Rheims, KJV)
John 19:24 coat (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) vesture (Rheims, KJV)
Acts 5:2 being of counsel (Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Great, Whittingham’s, Geneva, Bishops’)
knowing of it (Coverdale’s) being privy (Rheims, KJV)
Acts 10:1 captain (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) centurion (Rheims, KJV)
Acts 10:22 captain (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) centurion (Rheims, KJV)
Acts 14:23 by election (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) [these 2 words omitted by Rheims, KJV]
Acts 17:16 given to worshipping of images (Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, Great)
subject to worship idols (Whittingham’s) subject to idolatry (Geneva)
given to worshipping of idols (Bishops’) given to idolatry (Rheims, KJV)
Acts 17:19 Mars street (Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Great, Whittingham’s, Geneva)
street of Mars (Bishops’) Areopagus (Rheims, KJV)
Acts 19:29 common hall (Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Great, Bishops’) open place (Coverdale’s) common place (Geneva) theatre (Rheims, KJV)
Acts 19:35 ceased (Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Great) stilled (Coverdale’s) pacified (Bishops’)
stayed (Whittingham’s, Geneva) appeased (Rheims, KJV)
Acts 24:4 courtesy (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) clemency (Rheims, KJV)
Acts 25:23 chief men (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) principal men (Rheims, KJV)
Rom. 1:29 evil conditioned (Tyndale’s, Great, Bishops’) malignity (Rheims, KJV)
Rom. 11:2 knew before (Tyndale’s to Bishops’) foreknew (Rheims, KJV)
Rom. 11:14 to emulation (Rheims, KJV) [these 2 words not found in Tyndale’s to Bishops’]

 

Esyay Iay oday.

But I was attempting to keep it simple for those who don't happen to be multilingual. :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

I just now found this thread and wanted to share what I have found. I have started a list of "Latinized" words in the KJV and so far I have listed 324 of them. I have searched good dictionaries for their etymologies, English origins, etc. A good handful of those 324 words are used multiple times in different places in the KJV, making the actual count of Latinized words in the KJV well over 1,500 between the OT and NT. This sufficiently disproves Riplinger's claim and accusation against the accurate MVs. Many of the "Latinized" words that Riplinger claims the MVs use are found within the KJV. Her argument falls flat with falsehood. The saddest part are the people she has deceived because they trust her.

 

Ed's comment on the Latinization of languages:

Est Bene!
(is good)
(at least the Romans used approximately the
same alphabet we use. Them Greeks done went and
gone for a different AlphaBeta.

 

English has never been an original language. It has borrowed from others who have borrowed from others--one of several Roman-ce languages. The Romans borrowed/commandered a lot from the Greeks some of whom had the time to be intellectuals, their thoughts were not original either. Nothing new under the sun.

A lot of folk are wandering around trying to figure out how they got out of the Garden. Others are not sure there is a Garden. Many are wandering aimlessly.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

The main point does not concern whether some words and even many words in the English language were borrowed from the Latin language.

One point that most KJV-only authors do not deal with is the evidence that the KJV borrowed some renderings from translations that those same KJV-only authors place on their bad or corrupt line of Bibles such as the Latin Vulgate and the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims N. T.

Some KJV-only authors will condemn modern translations by claiming that they use more latinized words than the KJV while praising the KJV for its latinized words. They will also condemn modern translations for updating any of the latinized words that were used in the KJV. Is that being consistent?

 

Uh- no! Did you somehow expect it to be "consistent"?

Just my to pitch into the

Ed

 

Amen, Brother Bro.James -- Maranatha! :thumbs:

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]The Message [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Revelation 22[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]:20[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]

He who testifies to all these things says it again:
"I'm on my way! I'll be there soon!"
Yes! Come, Master Jesus! [/FONT]

 

This is why I began putting together the list of "Latinized" words found in the KJV. I love my KJV but I also love my NKJV (it is just as much God's word as any previous accurate Bible in any language), and when I heard Riplinger daring state "more Latinized words" as one of her many ridiculous accusations against it, I reacted. As a Berean, I rejoice in refuting the false teachings of such false teachers. On this one, I can prove that Riplinger is dead wrong.