Why did the AV1611 translators say this?

If you can make this assertion, then I can most certainly assert that they were commenting on translations of like textual basis.

 

About 75-80 percent of the KJV is word-for-word (sometimes entire verses) the same as the Catholic Douay-Rheims (DR).

However the Douay-Rheims NT (translated from the Latin Vulgate) was published in 1582, so it would seem to me that they meant Catholic translations as well.

In fact they had mixed feelings about the Vulgate, sometime praising it, sometimes giving it a put-down and on a few occasions departing from the traditional text in favor of the DR/Vulgate.


HankD

 

Originaly posted by Pastor_Bob:

And I will most certainly assert the same thing.I can assert this by the rejection of the Alexandrian readings by the KJB translators.

 

Again, yet the called the Septuagint, which is more dissimilar than any modern version (and is also Alexandrian, BTW), "the word of God" despite its textual inaccuracies.

 

Pastor_Bob: “then I can most certainly assert that they were commenting on translations of like textual basis.”

AA: “And I will most certainly assert the same thing. I can assert this by the rejection of the Alexandrian readings by the KJB translators.”

I will grant that the KJV translators were generally translating from the printed TR editions, with some Latin Vulgate readings thrown in. However, AA’s comment is inaccurate.

Case in point, Mt 10:8, where the KJV phrase “raise the dead” is *not* the dominant text found in nearly all Greek manuscripts (which simply do not include those words), but in fact is found in AA’s despised and rejected Alexandrian manuscripts:

The phrase is included by Aleph (Sinaiticus), B (Vaticanus), and C (Ephraemi Rescriptus), along with the (AA would say “corrupt”) Western manuscript D (Codex Bezae). In addition, a very few other Alexandrian and non-Byzantine MSS also support the inclusion of this phrase (e.g. N 0281 33 892 are Alexandrian; f1, f13 565 700mg generally considered Caesarean); but the “majority” of MSS, the Byzantine text, simply was *not* followed by the KJV translators, who in this location chose to follow the *Alexandrian* reading rather than to “reject” such.

So, it would seem in this instance that Anti-Alexandrian has to be Pro-Alexandrian. Must be some sort of "advanced revelation".

 

I am curious.
Since WHEN did marginal notes become Scripture?
I would agree that the translators included ALTERNATE renderings for the purpose of clarification or explaination. I will not concede however that they meant the alternate renderings to be their FIRST choice. This is so obvious as to be almost laughable.
Therefore; my question would be, just exactly what did you hope to prove? You certainly did NOT prove your conclusion.
In His service;
Jim

 

Pastor_Bob said:

If you can make this assertion, then I can most certainly assert that they were commenting on translations of like textual basis.

Except that my "assertion" is supported by direct statement of the translators, and yours is supported by nothing.

That entire preface is a polemic against the Roman way of thinking about Bible translation, of which the passage under discussion is but one part.

[ October 19, 2004, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

HankD said:

About 75-80 percent of the KJV is word-for-word (sometimes entire verses) the same as the Catholic Douay-Rheims (DR).

However the Douay-Rheims NT (translated from the Latin Vulgate) was published in 1582, so it would seem to me that they meant Catholic translations as well.

The complete Douay Bible was not published intil 1610. Perhaps the preface was written earlier in the work, which would also explain why the authors quote an earlier translation of the Bible in the front matter instead of the one they were actually working on.

 

av1611jim asked:

Since WHEN did marginal notes become Scripture?

This is a dishonest question, since saying the margin notes are correct is not equivalent to saying they are Scripture.

 

The KJV translators were influenced by the Catholic Douay-Rheims version. The KJV translators borrowed heavily from the DR.