Did Latin Vulgate influence KJV?

Did the Latin Vulgate and the Septuagint influence any renderings in the KJV?

Edward Hills wrote: "Sometimes also the influence of the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate is discernible in the King James Old Testament" (KJV DEFENDED, p. 223).

 

Are you being consistent when you complain about Roman Catholic influence on modern versions and yet accept Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate influence on the KJV?

Has it been shown that the Latin Vulgate's "unicornis" was translated correctly?

Concerning Leviticus 11:18, Robert Gell (1595-1665), who had been chaplain to KJV translator George Abbot, claimed that "our [KJV] translators render the word 'a swan, following herein Jerome's authority" (ESSAY TOWARD THE AMENDMENT OF THE LAST ENGLISH-TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE, p. 270). Gell confirmed that many scholars in his day and earlier did not reckon the swan to be among the unclean fowls (pp. 272-273).

James Carleton wrote: "One cannot but be struck by the number of words which have come into the Authorized Version from the Vulgate through the medium of the Rhemish New Testament" (PART OF THE RHEIMS IN THE MAKING OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE, p. 32).

 

It is not a mere assumption. It is a valid observation based on the known evidence. There are several indirect and even direct ways that the KJV was influenced by the Latin Vulgate. Martin Luther made some use of the Latin Vulgate in the making of his German Bible, and Luther's Bible influenced William Tyndale in his translating, and Tyndale was an important influence on the KJV. Miles Coverdale also consulted the Latin Vulgate in his translating,
and the 1535 Coverdale's Bible is one of the earlier English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision. There is also evidence that the KJV took some renderings from the 1582 Rheims N. T, which was translated from the Latin Vulgate. In such ways, the KJV could be indirectly influenced by the Latin Vulgate without even directly consulting it.

It is clear that many if not all of the KJV translators had direct knowledge of the Latin Vulgate. Many of the KJV translators may have had greater knowledge of the Latin language than they did of Greek or Hebrew. In that day, the Latin Vulgate was the most commonly read Bible of those who knew Latin. KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes took the text of his sermons from the Latin Vulgate. KJV translator John Bois was known for his defence of the Latin Vulgate.
The standard reference work THE DICTIONARY OF NATIONAL BIOGRAPHY noted that Bois wrote a manuscript that "consists of brief critical notes, in which the renderings of the Vulgate are in the main defended, but Bois frequently proposes more exact translations of his own, both Latin and English" (p. 775). John M'Clintock confirmed that Bois' only published work was "a vindication of the Vulgate version of the New Testament" (CYCLOPAEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL, AND ECCLESIASTICAL LITERATURE, Vol. I, p. 869). Allibone quoted Orme as writing the following about John Bois: "his defences of the Latin Vulgate are often ingenious and important" (CRITICAL DICTIONARY OF ENGLISH LITERATURE, p. 233).

While the KJV translators disagreed with or refuted the Latin Vulgate-only view of their day, they did not say that they did not consult or make any use of the Latin Vulgate. They even refer favorably to or quote Jerome in their preface to the 1611. In their preface, they indicated that they consulted Latin translators, one of which would include Jerome.

You seem to be the one that is seeking to assume that the KJV was not influenced by the Latin Vulgate in spite of all the known evidence
of that influence.

 

"Pygarg" (Deut. 14:5) seems to have come from the Latin Vulgate's rendering "pygargus" or the Greek LXX's rendering "pygargos" or both.

"Lucifer" (Isa. 14:12) comes directly from the Latin Vulgate or indirectly from the Latin Vulgate thru the other pre-1611 English Bibles that took it from the Vulgate. The 1380's Wycliffe's Bible made from the Latin Vulgate was
the first to introduce the Latin word "lucifer" as its rendering at Isaiah 14:12.

 

KJV-only author D. A. Waite claimed: "The text which underlies our King James Bible was a text that Dr. Frederick Scrivener put out" (CENTRAL SEMINARY REFUTED, p. 74).

Now notice what the editor of this Greek text wrote.

In the preface to the first edition of his Greek text, F. H. A. Scrivener wrote: "In some places the Authorized Version corresponds but loosely with any form of the Greek original, while it exactly follows the Latin Vulgate" (NEW TESTAMENT IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK, p. ix).

 

Glenn Conjurske, a Baptist pastor and KJV defender, wrote: "There are places where the King James Version follows the Latin Vulgate instead of the Greek, as, for example, where it reads 'fold' instead of 'flock' in John 10:16"
(OLDE PATHS, July, 1992, p. 154).

In the KJV, two different Greek words are translated "fold" in John 10:16. A. T. Robertson pointed out that there is a distinction made by Jesus between 'aule' [fold] and 'poimne' [flock]
(WORD PICTURES, V, p. 181). Robertson added that the Latin Vulgate's use of one Latin word for these two Greek words "confused this distinction" and "helped Roman Catholic assumptions" (p. 181).
Marvin Vincent also wrote: "It will readily be seen that the incorrect rendering fostered by the carelessness or the mistake of some of the Western fathers, and by the Vulgate, which renders both words by ovile, fold, has been in the interest of Romish claims" (WORD STUDIES, II, p. 194).

William Tyndale had kept the difference of meaning between the two Greek words by translating the second Greek word in this verse (poimne) as "flock." The KJV translators themselves also translated this Greek word 'poimne' as "flock" at some other verses (Matt. 26:31, Luke 2:8, 1 Cor. 9:7).

 

Was the Latin Vulgate translated correctly at John 10:16?