Featured What Greek text did Jerome use?

so the Critical Greek text was basis of the Vulgate?

 

He made his New Testament Vulgate from Old Latin manuscripts, consulting Greek manuscripts. Seems like I remember Metzger or the Alands saying Greek manuscripts like Alexandrinus . Also Jerome may have not done the whole New Testament.

 

KJV-only authors make the following generalized claims about the Greek texts that would underlie the Latin Vulgate of Jerome.

Troy Clark claimed that the Douay-Rheims “was translated strictly from the Critical Text Latin Vulgate bible of Rome,” and he listed it in his “Critical text” stream of Bibles (Perfect Bible, pp. 267, 296). Peter Ruckman acknowledged that “the textual basis of the Douay-Rheims is Jerome’s Latin Vulgate,” but he also claimed in his endnotes that “the Greek text of the Rheims Jesuit bible was the Westcott and Hort Greek text” (Biblical Scholarship, pp. 162, 517). Peter Ruckman referred to “the Greek text of Rome (Jesuit Rheims)” (King James Onlyism, p. 46). Peter Ruckman mentioned “Satan’s interest in reinstituting the Dark Age Jesuit Rheims Bible of 1582” (Alexandrian Cult, Part Eight, p. 2). Jim Taylor asserted that “Jerome’s Latin Vulgate generally agrees with the Westcott and Hort Text” (In Defense of the TR, p. 204). James Sightler maintained that Jerome “gave us the Latin Vulgate which was based on Greek manuscripts of the Vaticanus type” (Testimony Founded, p. 12). James Sightler claimed: “Jerome had used manuscripts resembling B and Aleph to prepare the Vulgate,” and “There are many other instances where the Rheims-Douay approaches the reading of the critical text” (pp. 130, 131). J. J. Ray asserted: “In the minds of those who are well informed; the Latin Vulgate; the Vaticanus; the Sinaiticus; the Hexapla; Jerome; Eusebius; and Origen; are terms which are inseparable” (God Wrote Only One Bible, p. 19). J. J. Ray claimed that “Jerome’s Vulgate is largely in agreement with these two manuscripts [Vaticanus, Sinaiticus]” (p. 20). James Rasbeary declared: “The Douay-Rheims is, of course, very corrupt, just like its source text and the men that translated it” (What’s Wrong, p. 137). James Rasbeary alleged that “they [two ancient manuscripts Vaticanus and Sinaiticus] are no different than the Catholic Vulgate produced by Jerome” (p. 160).

 

Interesting to me that the majority of the greek source text being used by the early and latter Church fathers and others appeared to be akin to our Critical greek text, so per the KJVO, did God not pteseve it until Eramus and his TR then?

 

Since I clearly noted that KJV-only authors were making "generalized claims" and did not say that they were making accurate assertions or stating facts, it was obvious that I did not suggest that their claims were accurate.

How are you unaware of the fact that I know that KJV-only authors often make claims that they do not prove to be true?

 

Jerome is said to have translated the Old Testament of his Latin Vulgate from the Hebrew while the Old Latin OT was translated from the Greek Septuagint.

In his 2016 research concerning the Latin NT, H. A. G. Houghton asserted: "There are several indications that Jerome was responsible for revision of the Gospels only and not the rest of the New Testament. When he discusses questions of translation affecting the Gospels he quotes forms matching his revised version, but he never cites readings characteristic of the Vulgate in the other New Testament books. What is more, in his commentary on four of the Pauline epistles, he criticizes the existing Latin translation and provides his own alternative" (The Latin New Testament: A Guide to its Early History, Texts, and Manuscripts, p. 34).

Concerning the Latin Vulgate, H. A. G. Houghton also asserted: "There is a noticeable difference in translation technique between the Gospels and the other writings" (p. 41).

Houghton claimed that "the alterations made to Acts and the Catholic Epistles reflect a Greek text similar to that of the early majuscule manuscripts rather than the later Greek text used by Jerome in the Gospels" (p. 41).

 

According to Houghton's extensive research concerning the Latin New Testament including the Latin Vulgate NT, the underlying Greek text for the Gospels in the Latin Vulgate may be different than the underlying Greek text for the rest of its NT books. Thus, the Greek text used by Jerome in revising the Gospels in Latin may be different from whomever did the revising of the other NT books.

 

Well, if the family 35 Greek New Testament best represents the original Greek New Testament text that would suggest that Jerome may not have been that kind of scholar, being he was working for his church 405AD.

 

It's been said that he used those of Alexandrian test type, if you believe any of what written here:
Vetus Latina - Wikipedia
Vulgate - Wikipedia

Nothing that I would care to share even if I did know, given the climate of this forum and the attitudes of most of those who post on it regarding this subject.

In other words,
Anything that I would dig up and submit would only be vehemently opposed and even generally ridiculed ( despite the Lord's commands against such behavior ), as I am considered to be "KJVO" by most on this board...

Even though I am instead "TR-O" when it comes to the Greek and "KJV-Best-in English" when it comes to translations.

I would say "yes" but only in a rough sense, given what I know of Codex Sinaiticus' origins and apparent text-type.

In fact, Sinaiticus' age corresponds to very nearly the same time frame as Jerome's revision / update of the Vetus Latina ( the Vulgate ), and while I believe that he may not have used it, he probably used manuscripts that were very similar to both it and Codex Vaticanus.

 

Jerome used the KJV!!

read you Bibles

 

He may have never seen a family 35 greek manuscript before. Seems in the Gospels Jerome is halfway between the Byzantine Alexandrian. Maybe leaning a little more towards Byzantine. But sometimes agreeing with one another time the other.

 

I think I remember reading a scholar, perhaps Westcott, that said Jerome used Greek manuscripts (or a manuscript) like Codex Alexandrinus. In the Gospels it is the earliest Byzantine Text manuscript. Of course even codex's Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have Byzantine readings in the Gospels.

 

Perhaps you merely assume to know my intentions and motives in advocating truth so that you in effect misrepresent what you claim is my modus operandi

KJV-only authors made claims that concerned the subject or question of this thread.
What would be wrong in seeking to apply the same standards to the claims of KJV-only authors as are applied to other authors? Why should what KJV-only authors claim be avoided or dodged concerning subjects about which they make claims?

In this thread, I also provided quotations from a leading authority or expert concerning the Latin New Testament.

 

Perhaps your own attitude may be no better than those whom you accuse. Are you making any effort to improve the climate of this forum? How do you improve the climate by throwing out vague, unsupported accusations against the forum and other posters?

Instead of making unsupported allegations against assumed attitudes and intentions, why not discuss actual statements that you assume to be incorrect and then prove those statements to be incorrect?

Possibly some of those whom you may accuse may be more willing to accept the truth and verifiable facts regardless of who posts them than you may be.