What % of KJV from Rheims?

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Logos1560, May 8, 2005.

  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    What percentage of the KJV's renderings come from the 1582 Rheims New Testament?

    Ward S. Allen and Edward 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).


    Luke 23:32

    evildoers (Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Whittingham's, Geneva, Bishops')

    malefactors (1582 Rheims, KJV)
     
  2. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,165
    Likes Received:
    322
    It is difficult to put a percentage on it.

    That being said: 80-90%.

    HankD
     
  3. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    if someone has access to a nice big computer n the txt files of the KJV (one of them editions, anyway) n the Rheims (possibly fr CCAT), they cld do a file-compare n see the results.

    likewise for a Tyndale, ERV, RSV, ESV, etc.
     
  4. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,235
    Likes Received:
    1,321
    From the Rheims? I think that # is way too high. More like 5%. That is not to say there are not similarities, but those are more likely coincidental than actual. The basis of the KJV was the Bishops' Bible of 1568 which predates the Rheims of 1582 so it is anachronistic to assume the similarities came from the Rheims. [​IMG]
     
  5. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,079
    Likes Received:
    103
    J.G. Carleton has compiled a list of 2,803 readings and 140 marginal readings taken from the Rheims NT. (The Part of Rheims in the Making of the English Bible, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1902)


    DOUG KUTILEK has compiled some other sources on the topic.
     
  6. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,235
    Likes Received:
    1,321
    Yeah, that sounds more like it. 80-90% seemed really high to me.

    Now, that begs the question. Because the KJV and the Rheims read the same does it necessarily follow that the KJV reading came from the Rheims? If 30 students all take the same test, and 20 of them give the same answers, does it mean they copied from one another, or does it mean they all gave the correct answer?

    Because the words read the same does not necessarily mean they were copied. The same can be said of the Tyndale and Geneva bibles. If we take the KJV readings that follow the Tyndale readings, and add to that the readings that follow the Geneva readings, and those from Cranmer, Great, Bishops', etc., we come up with 135% of the KJV. Oh oh. How can we have more than 100%? We can't. Many of those readings are simply coincidental to good translation. [​IMG]

    That is not to say that some may be edited from the Rheims, but it would be anachronistic to assume all of them did. [​IMG]
     
  7. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,652
    Likes Received:
    312
    I can believe a goodly percentage was contributed by the Geneva Bible. (But then the Geneva was a retranslation and a revision of previous translations. If a word or passage is found to be in accordance with your original language source, why change it?)

    However, I am in a group studying seventeenth century Europe. So, I do have a problem with believing the Rheims numbers. One reason is politics: Church of England translators consciously adopting the wording of Church of Rome translators? I find that very hard to believe. Remember the reason we have church in the AV1611 instead of the Geneva's congregation? The other reason for my skepticism is the source each of the translations used. As I understand the situation, the Rheims was to conform with or be translated from the Latin Vulgate. The committees translating the Authorized Version of 1611 were under no such obligation.

    I agree with TCassidy. Most of the time there is only one way to honestly translate a text.
     
  8. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,165
    Likes Received:
    322
    I probably should have stipulated the NT and a word-for-word comparison not verse-by-verse.

    Decide for yourselves, I chose 1 John Chapter 1

    Douay-Rheims first then the AV:

    1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and our hands have handled, of the word of life.
    1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

    2 For the life was manifested: and we have seen and do bear witness and declare unto you the life eternal, which was with the Father and hath appeared to us.
    2 For the life was manifested, and we have seen [it], and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;

    3 That which we have seen and have heard, we declare unto you: that you also may have fellowship with us and our fellowship may be with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.
    3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship [is] with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

    4 And these things we write to you, that you may rejoice and your joy may be full.
    4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.

    5 And this is the declaration which we have heard from him and declare unto you: That God is light and in him there is no darkness.
    5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

    6 If we say that we have fellowship with him and walk in darkness, we lie and do not the truth.
    6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:

    7 But if we walk in the light, as he also is in the light, we have fellowship one with another: And the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
    7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

    8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.
    8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

    9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all iniquity.
    9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

    10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar: and his word is not in us.
    10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

    Or, you choose a passage and I'll do that one.

    HankD

    [ May 09, 2005, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]
     
  9. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,235
    Likes Received:
    1,321
    I think that what you have shown us is not that the KJV copied the Rheims, but rather that the Rheims copied the Tyndale as did the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Bishops' Bible.

    To save time I will only type out verse 10.

    Tyndale (1525), "Yf we saye we have not synned, we make him a lyar, and his worde is not in us."

    Great Bible (1539), "If we saye we have not synned, we make hym a lyar, and hys worde is not in us."

    Geneva Bible (1560), If we say we have not sinned, we make him a lier, and his worde is not in us."

    Bishops' Bible (1568), If wee say that wee have not sinned, wee make him a lyar, and his word is not in us."

    [​IMG]
     
  10. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,165
    Likes Received:
    322
    Yes, I think you're correct. There was, apparently, an English "TR" probably starting with the Tyndale/Wyclif version, or possibly even an earlier Anglo-Saxon translation.

    Wycliff 1 John 1:10 And if we seien, we han not synned, we maken hym a liere, and his word is not in vs.


    HankD
     
  11. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,652
    Likes Received:
    312
    And I again would remind you of the ecclesiastical and secular politics of the period. The various committees would not have let a copy of the Rheims NT within 10 miles of their location. The Puritans/Presbyterians had already rejected the Bishops' in favor of the Geneva for too much popery. The men working on the AV 1611 would not have even touched a copy of the Rheims much less used it as a reference.

    Good night, the hue and cry raised by the Puritans would still be heard today. Remember, on the Continent, the Thirty Years War is just about to ignite. The times were too dangerous for the AV1611 translators' project and persons, for them to use the Rheims as a source.
     
  12. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Douay-Rheims New Testament was not liked by the Church of England, as it was the product of the Roman Catholic Church. Only some of its "Latinisims" appear in the New Testament of the KJV, and this would account to no more than 3% of the entire NT.
     
  13. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,652
    Likes Received:
    312
    Just to clarify my position. The AV1611 translators were not ignorant of the world around them. So, yes, I have no doubt they were familiar with the text of the Douay-Rheims. But like I said, the Rheims was probably not present on the shelves of their studies and workrooms, unlike other texts and versions.
     
  14. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,079
    Likes Received:
    103
    I don't think you can go quite that far. Dr. William Fulke of Cambridge published a refutation of the Rheims NT in 1589 that included the texts of the Rheims side by side with the text of Bishops New Testament. According to Sir Frederick Kenyon, in Our Bible & the Ancient Manuscripts, Fulke's refutation probably had wider circulation than the Rheims NT itself.

    "Fulke's work had a considerable popu­larity, and it is possibly to the wider knowledge of the Rheims version thus produced that we owe the use made of it by the scholars who prepared the Authorised Version ..."

    The KJV translators, in their letter to the reader, indicated a close familiarity with the Rheims NT.

    "Lastly, we have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old Ecclesiastical words, and betake them to other, as when they put WASHING for BAPTISM, and CONGREGATION instead of CHURCH: as also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their AZIMES, TUNIKE, RATIONAL, HOLOCAUSTS, PRAEPUCE, PASCHE, and a number of such like, whereof their late Translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof, it may be kept from being understood."
     
  15. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,652
    Likes Received:
    312
    Their anti-Rheims statement seems to me to be a preventative strike. With such a bold statement, I revise my opinion. There may very well have been a couple of Rheims copies around. If I was them and anybody asked why, I'd have said:
    Remember back then, theological debates were a blood sport.
     
  16. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,165
    Likes Received:
    322
    Don't forget about doing "penance".

    Douay-Rheims Acts 17:30
    And God indeed having winked at the times of this ignorance, now declareth unto men that all should every where do penance.

    KJV Acts 17:30
    And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent.

    HankD
     
  17. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    In his introduction to a 1911 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). Peter Thuesen wrote:
    "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 ignored the evidence that they followed some of the renderings of the Rheims (IN AWE OF THY WORD, p. 536).

    Charles Butterworth wrote: "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).

    W. F. Moulton wrote: "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). Benson Bobrick wrote: "From the Rheims New Testament, the translators saw fit to borrow a number of Latinate words" (WIDE AS THE WATERS, p. 244).
     
  18. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    The word "penance" was also in the old 1380's
    Wycliffe's Bible. You may be surprised that the
    1535 Coverdale's Bible has "penance" around 10
    times (Matt. 3:8, 12:41, Luke 10:13, 11:32, 15:7, 10, 16:30, Acts 3:19, and 26:20). Coverdale's 1538 Duoglott New Testament [English/Latin]
    also sometimes used the rendering "penance"
    (Matt. 3:2, 8, 11, 4:17, 11:20, 21, 12:41, Mark 1:4).
     
  19. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,165
    Likes Received:
    322
    Yes, I've said all along that the Church of England has had an illicit love affair with the Church of Rome both before and after Henry the 8th.

    Ask your "Bishop".

    HankD
     
  20. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,235
    Likes Received:
    1,321
    Don't be too hard on the Church of England based on Wycliffe's choice of "penance" vice "repentance." Remember, Wycliffe completed his translation in 1380, about 150 years before the English Reformation of 1535. And, never forget, as much as we may admire Wycliffe, he was an ordained Roman Catholic Priest who did not repudiate the Roman Catholic Mass until 1381, the year after he finished the work on his translation. Add to that he was translating from the Latin Vulgate and "paenitentiae/paenitentiam" is a lot closer to "do penance" than "repentance." [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Loading...