What's so bad about the Vulgate?

He said so in the Introduction to his English translation.

Because we can see differences between it and the original Aramaic gospels as harmonized by Tatian in his Diatesseron, and the changes follow the Alexandrian readings.

I don't know. I have have to reasearch it a bit.

 

The earliest form of an Aramaic New Testament used in the early Syriac Church is known in Syriac as Evangelion Damhalte which means 'Gospels of the Mixed'. It is known in Western sources as the Diatessaron, a Greek word meaning 'through [the] four [Gospels]'. As its name implies, this Gospel was made up by 'combining' the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) into one text. The Diatessaron was very popular in the early Syriac Church, but later was replaced by the four separate Gospels. The text of the Syriac Diatessaron is lost, but some verses can be found as citations in the writings of the Church Fathers.

The Syriac Church produced another version of the Gospels in the 2nd century. This translation was unknown to the Syriac Church or to Biblical scholars until its discovery in the nineteenth century. Since it is older than the text of the existing Syriac Bible, it was called by scholars the Old Syriac. The ancient Syriac church which used this translation named it in Syriac Evangelion Dampharshe which means 'Gospels of the Separated.' The Old Syriac is a 'free' translation from the Greek text; it is 'free' in the sense that the translators paraphrased the text in order to make it as clear as possible to the native Syriac reader. They had in mind the reader rather than the original text. After the Old Syriac was replaced by the Peshitta, it was forgotten by the Syriac Church until two manuscripts containing portions of its texts were discovered in the nineteenth century.

Since the Old Syriac was a free translation, it went through a series of revisions to make it closer to the original Greek text. These revisions were done by a number of translators during a long period of time. The end result was what we now know as the Peshitta, completed sometime around the 4th or 5th century. It became the authoritative translation of all Syriac-speaking Churches. Unlike the Old Syriac, the Peshitta includes all the books of the New Testament, apart from the Minor Catholic Epistles (2 Peter, 2 and 3 John and Jude) and Revelation. These books were not popular in the Syriac Church till much later.

 

Brother,
It is my understanding that the NT was published in Rheims in 1582 but the OT was not completed until 1610 in Douay. Is this accurate information?

 

Hank,
You are correct when you say that the KJV was influenced by Tyndale but you are mistaken to assume that Tyndale was influenced by the Latin Vulgate.

Tyndale had a command of Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish, English, and French. It was Tyndale's burning desire to produce an English Bible translated directly from the original languages. He was not dependant upon the LV at all.

The similarities between the Douay-Rheims and the AV 1611 are evident. This does not prove that they are related. They stem from two different sources that happen to agree at times.

 

Yes. But the NT was widely circulated beginning in 1582 and some of its English readings made their way into the KJV.

 

Dear Pator Bob,

You posted...

Everyone in the 1500's was influenced by the Latin Vulgate.
Please note again that I said "influenced", I did not say "dependant". You supplied that word which I did not use.

Even at that he may indeed have depended upon the Latin vulgate in one or two places (for example the Johannine Comma 1 John 5:7-8. I don't know if the Eramus TR had it when Tyndale used it).

As to the KJV Douay-Rheims similarity, let me say it this way: It is my opinion, due to the 20-25 % of identical wording of the verses and 80% virtual identity that it is a statistical impossibility that one did borrow from the other.

HankD

[ September 12, 2002, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Not only is it statistically signigicant, they said they did. The title page of the 1611 first edition, first printing says, " . . . with the former Tranflations diligently compared and reuifed . . ." Those "former Translations" which were compared and revised were undoubtedly Tyndale, Geneva, Rheims, as well as the other common English bibles, Great, Bishop's, etc.