You are not the only person that did not get paid for books from Jay Green.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
In defense of the King James Bible and doctrine
- Thread starter Lewis HB
- Start date
- Status
The KJV-only web sites that you recommend do not present any positive, clear, consistent, sound, logical, true, and scriptural case for a modern KJV-only view.
The Bible doctrine of preservation would concern the exact same words given by God to the prophets and apostles, which would be the original-language words of Scripture, and you have not demonstrated from the Scriptures that it concerns the different words in English. You ignore the fact that the KJV omits giving any English word/rendering for many preserved original-language words of Scripture and the KJV adds many words in English for which it has no original-language words of Scripture.
Your present likely post-1900 KJV edition adds over 190 whole words in English that were not found in the original 1611 KJV edition.
You do not back up the assertions that you have posted.
Ppl believed a space ship was on the tale end of the Hale Bopp comet and committed suicide to escape the world and get onboard that comet. Just because you believe something, no matter how much you are convinced, does not make it true.Dear Brother David Lamb ... you asked a great questtion "Why not translate the original Hebrew and Greek directly into Spanish?"
We of the KJV ONLY belief believe what God said when He said "He will preserve His word" We believe God preserved His inherant breathed Word in the English language in the KJV, just like He preserved His word thousands of years ago in every major world Western language.
Since it is impossible to translate exactly from one language ((Greek into English for example)) into another, God chose to preserve His bible in the KJV. Yes while I realize this idea will cause many to scribble furiously,> It is a question that needed to be answered! Thankyou Bro David
I am a fundamental Bible-believing Baptist who believes that God has preserved His Scriptures, that God was just as faithful to preserve the Scriptures before 1611 as after 1611. I believe and accept all that the Scriptures state and teach about themselves. The Bible doctrine of preservation would concern the exact same words given by God to the prophets and apostles, which would be the original-language words of Scripture, and you have not demonstrated from the Scriptures that it concerns the different words in English.
The word of God was translated into English many years before 1611. Preservation of the Scriptures did not begin in 1611. Inconsistent KJV-only teaching does not seem to advocate a consistent view of preservation that is true before 1611 as well as claimed to be true after 1611. Inconsistent KJV-only teaching suggests that God did not preserve His words in the same sense for English-speaking believers before 1611 as they assert that God has to do after 1611. KJV-only teaching seems to try to dictate to God how He has to preserve His words instead of accepting what the Scriptures actually teach. The Scriptures do not state nor teach that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England men in 1611.
A modern KJV-only view conflicts with the New Testament doctrine of the priesthood of all believers as it seems to make the KJV translators into some kind of exclusive priesthood who stand between believers and the word of God.
37818
Well-Known Member
It is my understanding 88% of Acts mss omit 8:37. And 0.6% mss have the KJV TR reading.My apologies. I had said about 10% of Greek Manuscripts contained Acts 8:37. It is actually 15%.
The Text of the Gospels
www.thetextofthegospels.com
Acts 8:37 is only supported by about 15% of the Greek manuscripts of Acts, but it was used by Irenaeus (in Book 3, 12:8 of Against Heresies, written c. 180, long before the earliest existing manuscript of this part of Acts was made), by Cyprian (in the 200s, in Book Three of his Testimonies, Treatise 12, chapter 43), by Pontus the Deacon (in the mid-200s), by Pacian of Barcelona (late 300s), and by Augustine (early 400s); it is also in the Coptic (Egyptian) manuscript known as the Glazier Codex (made in the 400s or 500s
You do not define what you mean by preservation, and you do not demonstrate that the Bible teaches your unpresented view of preservation.
KJV-only advocates usually appeal to a strict or absolute "every word preservation" or "jot-and-tittle preservation" when they are condemning or attacking other English Bible translations. They would condemn any claimed "meaning preservation" or "dynamic equivalent preservation" in other English Bibles.
However, they in effect ignore and avoid their own absolute demands for "every word preservation" or "jot-and-tittle preservation" when it comes to applying them to the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision and to the KJV itself and its many varying editions that are not every word the same and that are not every jot-and-tittle the same. KJV-only advocates will say that the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV are basically the same Bibles and some will say that they are "practically identical." They do not apply their demand for "every word preservation" and "jot-and-tittle preservation" consistently before 1611 and in 1611. They in effect accept "meaning preservation" or "dynamic equivalent preservation" for the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV as they do not apply the exact same standards/measures concerning preservation to the pre-1611 English Bibles and to the 1611 KJV that they inconsistently attempt to apply to modern English Bibles such as the NKJV. KJV-only advocates will claim or assert that the KJV is an every word translation while they close their eyes to all the original-language words of Scripture for which the KJV has no English word/rendering.
According to any absolute, strict demand for "every word preservation" and "jot-and-tittle preservation," the present twenty or more varying post-1900 KJV editions in use today would not even qualify to be the same exact Bible as the 1769 Oxford KJV edition, the 1769 Cambridge KJV edition, or the original 1611 KJV edition.
Here are a few examples of many assertions by KJV-only authors. Dennis Kwok claimed: “The translators of the KJB appointed by King James used the Verbal Equivalence method, word for word, as originally given by God” (VPP, p. 91). Dennis Kwok declared: “Every noun, adjective, preposition, participle, and so on in the Hebrew and Greek text is brought into English in the same way. That includes the structure and form as well” (p. 80). David H. Sorenson asserted: “The Traditional Text and the King James Version reflect the purified verbal transmission of God’s very words to this hour. Though the King James Version as a translation is not inspired, verbal preservation has carried the results of inspiration through to this hour in the King James Version. Those results are inerrancy and infallibility” (God’s Perfect Book, p. 211). Christopher Myers wrote: “The English King James Version (KJV) was translated from the Received Hebrew and Greek text, preserving every jot and tittle of the Word of God” (Riddle, Why I Preach, p. 189). David Loughran asserted that “a translator must, therefore, translate God’s words—all of them” and that “the King James Version translators employed a ‘word for word’ translation technique” (Woods, King’s Bible, p. 81). Gary Miller claimed that the KJV translators “made sure to clearly translate each and every word” (Why the KJV Bible, p. 18). David Daniels maintained that the KJV translators “were careful to translate the exact meaning of every word, or phrase, or verse in clear English words” (But I Trust, p. 56). Charles Keesee asserted: “If God inspired a word to be written down and your Bible does not contain it, then your Bible has an error” (Subtle Apostasy, p. 31). Jack Hyles claimed: “Every single word of God has been preserved in the King James Bible, the only Bible” (Need for an Every-Word Bible, p. 97). Jack McElroy asserted: “You can find all of his preserved, inerrant words in the King James Bible” (Bible Version Secrets, p. 423). Jack McElroy also declared: “King James Only folks believe that the Lord himself has provided them with a book that contains ALL of his words and ONLY his words WITHOUT ERROR” (p. 332).
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
Why would God preserve His word only in 17th century English? Do Mongolians, Icelanders, Lithuanians, etc. all have to learn 17th century English in order to read God's word?
I am pretty sure the KJV (along with any other legitimate translation of God's Word) does not need defending, at least not on a Christian forum.
God's Word transcends the translation process.
Some may point out various agendas for the production of the KJV (support of the British monarchy, bridge a gap between divisions within the Church of England, etc.), issues with the translation method (translating Latin to Greek and then to English, avoiding the vernacular, leaving Latin in the Old Testament, etc), and a few translation liberties/mistakes ("Red Sea", etc). Some may question the manuscripts used compared to more recent archeological discoveries.
But through all of that God's Word is unimpeded.
This is true with the KJV, NKJV, NIV, HSCB, NASB...etc. The English words are not inspired but God's words the English communicates is the inspired Word of God.
God's Word transcends the translation process.
Some may point out various agendas for the production of the KJV (support of the British monarchy, bridge a gap between divisions within the Church of England, etc.), issues with the translation method (translating Latin to Greek and then to English, avoiding the vernacular, leaving Latin in the Old Testament, etc), and a few translation liberties/mistakes ("Red Sea", etc). Some may question the manuscripts used compared to more recent archeological discoveries.
But through all of that God's Word is unimpeded.
This is true with the KJV, NKJV, NIV, HSCB, NASB...etc. The English words are not inspired but God's words the English communicates is the inspired Word of God.
Reading past threads on this topic I have wondered this as well.
There is a movement, often within IFB churches, that view the English words as God's words. They not only do not understand what a translation is or the process, but they are also deeply confused about God's Word.
Christians should know that when they hold their Bibles (KJV, NIV, NASB, NKJV, etc.) that they are holding God's Word. But sometimes they are ignorant about God's preserved words and get caught up in English translations, different words choices, different manuscripts.
Within fundamental churches there is a KJVO movement (a sect that believes the KJV is the Word of God and the NIV, NASB, etc.are not). These are carnal minded Christians. They cannot grasp that God has, or is even able to, preserve His Word in all of these English translations.
NOTE - I am not accusing you of being KJVO. I assume you prefer the KJV as many here do. I think most of us have a preferred translation.
I am just noting the reason KJVO people exist. They cannot grasp God's Word because they are carnal.
The best we can do is tell them that words are symbols for thoughts, ideas, events. God is Spirit. God's Word is spiritual truth. As they mature in faith they may be led into a fuller understanding.
We all believe that God preserved His Word (the Bible) in the KJV (and the NIV, NASB, NKJV, etc).
You are not differing. Nobody here demeaning God's Word regardless of the English translation because we are Christian.
Are you thinking of the Reina Valera version? If so, it predates the KJV by several years, being originally produced in 1569 and revised in 1602.
More recently, it was revised again in 1909 and again in 1960. The latest revision was done just a few years ago by the Trinitarian Bible Society. If the KJV had been carefully revised every 50 or 60 years, we might not have the plethora of versions we see today.
This is an extract from my blog, dating back more than 15 years. www.marprelate.wordpress.com Being English, and writing for an English audience, I have use the abbreviation "A.V." throughout instead of "K.J.V."
In the Preface of the Translators to the Reader, contained in my A.V. Bible, the translators wrote, ‘We do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession……containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.’
I could easily be persuaded to join a campaign to promote the Received Text (though I prefer the Majority Text), and I would gladly give financial support to a new Bible translation using that text if it is felt that the N.K.J.V. is not good enough. What I will not do is try to foist a 400 year-old translation with archaic language on the churches; firstly, because it’s a lost cause, and secondly because even if it succeeded it would be a retrograde step. The A.V. shares one feature with every other translation: it was made by fallible, sinful men. Infallibility does not rest with the translators, it rests in the original Greek and Hebrew texts. That is why it is helpful to have someone who knows those languages in every congregation. The A.V. falls short on three counts:-
1. The English language, like every other, has changed over the past four hundred years. Words alter their meanings over time. In 2Thes 2:7, the A.V. translates, ‘Only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.’ The word ‘let’ in the 17th Century, meant to restrain or hinder; today, of course, it means ‘allow.’ Therefore the verse means the exact opposite of what the A.V. says it means. The N.I.V. (and other modern versions) translate correctly, ‘But the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way.’
2. Some of the language in the A.V. is scarcely comprehensible even allowing for the archaic language. Consider Ezek 41:7. ‘And there was an enlarging, and a winding about still upward to the side chambers; for the winding about of the house went still upward round about the house: therefore the breadth of the house was still upward, and so increased from the lowest chamber to the highest by the midst.’ This may be a word-for-word translation, but what on earth does it mean? A translation that is so literal that no one can understand it is of limited use.
3. Supporters of the A.V. make great play on the fact that some modern translations omit references to the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, as indeed they do (except the N.K.J.V.). The most frequently cited verse is 1Tim 3:16, though there are several others. Less well known is that there are two places where all the modern translations affirm the deity of our Lord, but the A.V. does not.
Titus 2:13, A.V. Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.’
Titus 2:13, N.I.V. ‘While we wait for the blessed hope- the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ’ (other modern versions are similar).
2Peter 1:1b, A.V. ‘…..To them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.’
2Peter 1:1b, N.I.V. ‘….To those who through the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ have obtained a faith as precious as ours’ (other modern versions are similar).
The only modern translation that supports the A.V. in these two texts is the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses! Just in case it might be thought that the A.V. is right in these instances, let the reader look at 2Peter 1:11. Here the A.V. rightly translates, ‘….our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.’ Yet the Greek construction here is exactly the same as in 1:1. I have no doubt that all the translators of the A.V. were staunch Trinitarians, but it ill behoves A.V. supporters to sneer at the N.I.V. while the A.V. contains such serious errors.
There is also another place where the A.V. finds itself in agreement with the J.W.s. In John 1:32, it denies the personality of the Holy Spirit, referring to Him as ‘it.’ If a new Bible version appeared today with a similar error in it, the supporters of the Affirmation would be the first to pillory both the version and its translators .
In the Preface of the Translators to the Reader, contained in my A.V. Bible, the translators wrote, ‘We do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession……containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.’
I could easily be persuaded to join a campaign to promote the Received Text (though I prefer the Majority Text), and I would gladly give financial support to a new Bible translation using that text if it is felt that the N.K.J.V. is not good enough. What I will not do is try to foist a 400 year-old translation with archaic language on the churches; firstly, because it’s a lost cause, and secondly because even if it succeeded it would be a retrograde step. The A.V. shares one feature with every other translation: it was made by fallible, sinful men. Infallibility does not rest with the translators, it rests in the original Greek and Hebrew texts. That is why it is helpful to have someone who knows those languages in every congregation. The A.V. falls short on three counts:-
1. The English language, like every other, has changed over the past four hundred years. Words alter their meanings over time. In 2Thes 2:7, the A.V. translates, ‘Only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.’ The word ‘let’ in the 17th Century, meant to restrain or hinder; today, of course, it means ‘allow.’ Therefore the verse means the exact opposite of what the A.V. says it means. The N.I.V. (and other modern versions) translate correctly, ‘But the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way.’
2. Some of the language in the A.V. is scarcely comprehensible even allowing for the archaic language. Consider Ezek 41:7. ‘And there was an enlarging, and a winding about still upward to the side chambers; for the winding about of the house went still upward round about the house: therefore the breadth of the house was still upward, and so increased from the lowest chamber to the highest by the midst.’ This may be a word-for-word translation, but what on earth does it mean? A translation that is so literal that no one can understand it is of limited use.
3. Supporters of the A.V. make great play on the fact that some modern translations omit references to the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, as indeed they do (except the N.K.J.V.). The most frequently cited verse is 1Tim 3:16, though there are several others. Less well known is that there are two places where all the modern translations affirm the deity of our Lord, but the A.V. does not.
Titus 2:13, A.V. Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.’
Titus 2:13, N.I.V. ‘While we wait for the blessed hope- the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ’ (other modern versions are similar).
2Peter 1:1b, A.V. ‘…..To them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.’
2Peter 1:1b, N.I.V. ‘….To those who through the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ have obtained a faith as precious as ours’ (other modern versions are similar).
The only modern translation that supports the A.V. in these two texts is the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses! Just in case it might be thought that the A.V. is right in these instances, let the reader look at 2Peter 1:11. Here the A.V. rightly translates, ‘….our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.’ Yet the Greek construction here is exactly the same as in 1:1. I have no doubt that all the translators of the A.V. were staunch Trinitarians, but it ill behoves A.V. supporters to sneer at the N.I.V. while the A.V. contains such serious errors.
There is also another place where the A.V. finds itself in agreement with the J.W.s. In John 1:32, it denies the personality of the Holy Spirit, referring to Him as ‘it.’ If a new Bible version appeared today with a similar error in it, the supporters of the Affirmation would be the first to pillory both the version and its translators .
Ben1445
Well-Known Member
Is that going by families or copies?
100 copies exactly the same may be the same mss.
The numbers come out differently if you count all 100 as one mss.
Just wondering how we are counting these statistics.
Alan Dale Gross
Well-Known Member
I don't suppose you'd have any Bible references or teachings that spell out exactly what you're saying in any or all your following statements.
(Or is it taken for granted that some extra-Biblical notions we think might be in there somewhere, or it seems like they are, or should be in there, are just as cool as what God teaches from His Word, in Words?)
1.
I've got a list of Bibles that pre-date the King James Bible and may, or may not, have been among those consulted, but are good enough to have been, since they are simply based on reliable original-language texts.
"The Masoretic Text"
"1524-25 Bomberg Edition of the Masoretic Text also known as the Ben Chayyim Text
"THE NEW TESTAMENT"
All dates are Anno Domini (A.D.)
"30-95------------Original Autographs
95-150----------Greek Vulgate (Copy of Originals)
120---------------The Waldensian Bible
150---------------The Peshitta (Syrian Copy)
150-400--------Papyrus Readings of the Receptus
157--------------The Italic Bible - From the Old Latin Vulgate used in Northern Italy
157--------------The Old Latin Vulgate
177--------------The Gallic Bible
350--------------The Gothic Version of Ulfilas
350-400-------The Textus Receptus is Dominant Text
400--------------Augustine favors Textus Receptus
400--------------The Armenian Bible (Translated by Mesrob)
400--------------The Old Syriac
450--------------The Palestinian Syriac Version
450-1450------Byzantine Text Dominant (Textus Receptus)
508--------------Philoxenian - by Chorepiscopos Polycarp, who commissioned by Philoxenos of Mabbug
500-1500------Uncial Readings of Receptus (Codices)
616--------------Harclean Syriac (Translated by Thomas of Harqel - Revision of
508 Philoxenian)
864--------------Slavonic
1100-1300----The Latin Bible of the Waldensians (History goes back as far as the 2nd century as people of the Vaudoix Valley)
1160------------The Romaunt Version (Waldensian)
1300-1500----The Latin Bible of the Albigenses
1382-1550----The Latin Bible of the Lollards
1384------------The Wycliffe Bible
1516------------Erasmus's First Edition Greek New Testament
1522------------Erasmus's Third Edition Published
1522-1534----Martin Luther's German Bible
1525------------Tyndale Version
1534------------Tyndale's Amended Version
1534------------Colinaeus' Receptus
1535------------Coverdale Version
1535------------Lefevre's French Bible
1537------------Olivetan's French Bible
1537------------Matthew's Bible (John Rogers Printer)
1539------------Taverner's Bible
1539------------The Great Bible
1541------------Swedish Upsala Bible by Laurentius
1550------------Stephanus Receptus (St. Stephen's Text)
1550------------Danish Christian III Bible
1558------------Biestken's Dutch Work
1560------------The Geneva Bible
1565------------Theodore Beza's Receptus
1568------------The Bishop's Bible
1569------------Spanish Translation by Cassiodoro de Reyna
1587------------Geneva Bible ("Imprinted at London by Christopher Barker, Printer to the Qveenes Maiestie.
1587. Cum priuilegio." )
1598------------Theodore Beza's Text
1602------------Czech Version
1607------------Diodati Italian Version
1611------------The King James Bible with Apocrypha between Old and New Testament
1613------------The King James Bible (Apocrypha Removed)
1769------------4th update of the English Language in the King James Bible
(Or is it taken for granted that some extra-Biblical notions we think might be in there somewhere, or it seems like they are, or should be in there, are just as cool as what God teaches from His Word, in Words?)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
...
I've got a list of Bibles that pre-date the King James Bible and may, or may not, have been among those consulted, but are good enough to have been, since they are simply based on reliable original-language texts.
"THE OLD TESTAMENT"
"The Masoretic Text"
"1524-25 Bomberg Edition of the Masoretic Text also known as the Ben Chayyim Text
"THE NEW TESTAMENT"
All dates are Anno Domini (A.D.)
"30-95------------Original Autographs
95-150----------Greek Vulgate (Copy of Originals)
120---------------The Waldensian Bible
150---------------The Peshitta (Syrian Copy)
150-400--------Papyrus Readings of the Receptus
157--------------The Italic Bible - From the Old Latin Vulgate used in Northern Italy
157--------------The Old Latin Vulgate
177--------------The Gallic Bible
350--------------The Gothic Version of Ulfilas
350-400-------The Textus Receptus is Dominant Text
400--------------Augustine favors Textus Receptus
400--------------The Armenian Bible (Translated by Mesrob)
400--------------The Old Syriac
450--------------The Palestinian Syriac Version
450-1450------Byzantine Text Dominant (Textus Receptus)
508--------------Philoxenian - by Chorepiscopos Polycarp, who commissioned by Philoxenos of Mabbug
500-1500------Uncial Readings of Receptus (Codices)
616--------------Harclean Syriac (Translated by Thomas of Harqel - Revision of
508 Philoxenian)
864--------------Slavonic
1100-1300----The Latin Bible of the Waldensians (History goes back as far as the 2nd century as people of the Vaudoix Valley)
1160------------The Romaunt Version (Waldensian)
1300-1500----The Latin Bible of the Albigenses
1382-1550----The Latin Bible of the Lollards
1384------------The Wycliffe Bible
1516------------Erasmus's First Edition Greek New Testament
1522------------Erasmus's Third Edition Published
1522-1534----Martin Luther's German Bible
1525------------Tyndale Version
1534------------Tyndale's Amended Version
1534------------Colinaeus' Receptus
1535------------Coverdale Version
1535------------Lefevre's French Bible
1537------------Olivetan's French Bible
1537------------Matthew's Bible (John Rogers Printer)
1539------------Taverner's Bible
1539------------The Great Bible
1541------------Swedish Upsala Bible by Laurentius
1550------------Stephanus Receptus (St. Stephen's Text)
1550------------Danish Christian III Bible
1558------------Biestken's Dutch Work
1560------------The Geneva Bible
1565------------Theodore Beza's Receptus
1568------------The Bishop's Bible
1569------------Spanish Translation by Cassiodoro de Reyna
1587------------Geneva Bible ("Imprinted at London by Christopher Barker, Printer to the Qveenes Maiestie.
1587. Cum priuilegio." )
1598------------Theodore Beza's Text
1602------------Czech Version
1607------------Diodati Italian Version
1611------------The King James Bible with Apocrypha between Old and New Testament
1613------------The King James Bible (Apocrypha Removed)
1769------------4th update of the English Language in the King James Bible
This list contains quite an astonishing number of assumptions.
First is the "Greek Vulgate" (the Greek common text) being copies of the original. Such texts only exist in the MT. Unless you mean the LXX, which excludes the New Testament. We do not know how these letters were copied by the various churches or how many variants were made.
I do like the Waldensian, even though they insisted they were a part of the Catholic Church (a "church within the Church").
The Waldensian Bible translations do not agree completely with the KJV. The Waldensian Bibles do not support a modern, non-scriptural KJV-only view.
Baptist historian Thomas Armitage wrote that “he [Peter Waldo] employed Stephen of Ansa and Bernard Ydross to translate the Gospels from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome into the Romance dialect for the common people, as well as the most inspiring passages from the Christian Fathers” (History of the Baptists, I, p. 295). Andrea Ferrari wrote that “Waldo of Lyons paid some clergy to translate parts of the Bible from the Vulgate” (Diodati’s Doctrine, pp. 71-72). Paul Tice confirmed that Waldo “enlisted two clerics to translate various parts of the Bible, including the four Gospels, into the native Provencal language” (History of the Waldenses, p. vi). H. J. Warner maintained that the base for this translation was “for the most part the Vulgate of Jerome” (Albigensian, II, p. 222). Warner noted that Stephen de Ansa, a [Roman Catholic] priest, translated some books of the Bible into the Romance tongue while another priest Bernard Udros wrote his translating down for Peter Waldo (p. 221). Glenn Conjurske affirmed that “the medieval Waldensian version in the old Romance language [was] translated from the Vulgate” (Olde Paths, July, 1997, p. 160). KJV-only author Ken Johnson wrote that “we openly grant this” [“the fact Waldo used the Vulgate as the basis of his translation”] (Real Truth, p. 21).
Margarent Deanesly wrote that “the earliest existent Waldensian texts, Provencal, Catalan and Italian, were founded on a Latin Bible, the use of which prevailed widely in the Visigothic kingdom of Narbonne, up to the thirteenth century” and that this Latin Bible “is characterized by a set of peculiar readings, amounting to over thirty, in the Acts of the Apostles” and these same readings appear in “the early Provencal, Catalan and Italian Bible” and “in the Tepl manuscript” (Lollard Bible, pp. 65-66). Deanesly referred to this Latin Bible as “the Visigothic Vulgate” and indicated that it was later superseded by the Paris Vulgate (p. 66). James Roper maintained that the two Provencal versions “are derived from the Latin text of Languadoc of the thirteenth century, and hence in Acts contain many ‘Western’ readings of old Latin origin” (Jackson, Beginnings, III, p. cxxxviii). James Roper added: “The translators of these texts merely used the text of Languadoc current in their own day and locality, which happened (through contiguity to Spain) to be widely mixed with Old Latin readings” (p. cxxxviii). Referring to Codex Teplensis and the Freiberg manuscript, James Roper wrote: “The peculiar readings of all these texts in Acts, often ‘Western’ go back (partly at least through a Provencal version) to the mixed Vulgate text of Languadoc of the thirteenth century, which is adequately known from Latin MSS” (pp. cxxxix-cxl). Roper asserted: “A translation of the New Testament into Italian was made, probably in the thirteenth century, from a Latin text like that of Languadoc, and under the influence of the Provencal New Testament. It includes, like those texts, some ’Western’ readings in Acts” (p. cxlii). Since Languadoc or Languedoc was the name of a region of southern France, especially the area between the Pyrenees and Loire River, and since Narbonne was a city in southern France in the same region and it was also the name of a province or kingdom in this area, both authors seem to have been referring to the same basic region. For a period of time, this area was not part of the country of France. The Catalan, Provencal, and Piedmontese dialects are considered to be dialects of the Romaunt language, the vernacular language of the South of Europe before the French, Spanish, and Italian languages were completely formed. The above evidence indicates that the mentioned Waldensian translations were made from an edition of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate that was mixed with some Old Latin readings, especially in the book of Acts. William Gilly had the Romanunt Version of the Gospel of John printed in 1848. L. Cledat had the N. T. as translated into Provencal printed in 1887 (Warner, p. 68).
Glenn Conjurske cited Herman Haupt as maintaining that “the old Romance, or Provencal, Waldensian version invariably reads Filh de la vergena (‘Son of the virgin’) instead of ‘Son of man’--except only in Hebrews 2:6, where (of course) it has filh de l’ome, ‘son of man’,” and Conjurske noted that he verified Haupt’s claim (Olde Paths, June, 1996, p. 137). H. J. Warner observed that “in St. John 1, the Romance version had ‘The Son was in the beginning,‘ and in verse 51 ‘The Son of the Virgin’ for ‘the Son of Man,‘ and so throughout all the Dublin, Zurich, Grenoble and Paris MSS. in every corresponding place” (Albigensian, II, pp. 223-224). William Gilly maintained that “wherever the words, Filius Hominis (Son of Man), occur in the Vulgate, they are translated Filh de la Vergena (Son of the Virgin), throughout the whole of this Version of the New Testament” (Romanunt Version, p. xliii).
James Todd described a Waldensian manuscript preserved at Dublin that has the New Testament with the books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Cantica, Wisdom, and Ecclelsiasticus in the Romance dialect (Books of the Vaudois, p. 1). Todd noted that its Gospel of Matthew includes “the prologue of St. Jerome.” Todd observed: “No intimation of the apocryphal or uncanonical character of the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus occurs in the MS” (Ibid.). In an appendix of Todd’s book, Henry Bradshaw described some Waldensian manuscripts preserved at Cambridge, noting that Morland Manuscript A includes “a translation of Genesis 1-10 from the Vulgate” (p. 216). Bradshaw noted that Morland Manuscript C included a translation of Job chapters 1-3 and 42 from the Vulgate and “a translation of the whole book of Tobit from the Vulgate” (pp. 215-216).
- Status