douay rheims/ KJV

[rsr]

If you read the original Tyndale, you'll find Iesus, which comes from the Latin transliteration from the Greek.

 

[rsr]

As to espoused, there is no record that the KJV translators consulted Taverner's or even knew if its existence, since the the NT was published only once, in 1539. Certainly the Rheims was in circulation at the time of the translation, so it is most reasonable to look there for the source of the KJV rendering. Tyndale revised his NT; the 1526 edition has rest. Is there any evidence, in any case, that the KJV translators knew Tyndale except through Coverdale, etc.? Just asking.

 

[HankD]

In the handwriting of the time, I and J were all but identical. That's why in the pre-typewriter US Army there was a I Company\Troop but no J.

I was commenting on the apparent misspelling of "Rheimes".

HankD

 

[Logos1560]

As to espoused, there is no record that the KJV translators consulted Taverner's or even knew if its existence, since the the NT was published only once, in 1539. Certainly the Rheims was in circulation at the time of the translation, so it is most reasonable to look there for the source of the KJV rendering.

I know of no historical evidence that clearly shows that the KJV translators directly consulted the 1539 Taverner's Bible.

On the other hand, there is firsthand historical evidence in the notes of one of the KJV translators that reveals that there was at least some consulting and use of the 1582 Rheims in the making of the KJV.

It is also known that some of the KJV translators had a copy of Fulke's book that printed the text of the Bishops' Bible's NT and the 1582 Rheims side by side.

 

[Logos1560]

Tyndale revised his NT; the 1526 edition has rest. Is there any evidence, in any case, that the KJV translators knew Tyndale except through Coverdale, etc.? Just asking.

I do not know if there is any clear evidence that the KJV translators directly used an edition of Tyndale's New Testament although it is listed in the rules as one of the translations that they could consult.

It is unlikely that they consulted or used a 1526 edition of Tyndale's New Testament since it has been said that only three copies of it are known to have survived the efforts of the Bishop of London and others to burn or destroy it [one of those surviving copies was in Europe if I remember correctly].

While it is claimed that a large percentage of the KJV's NT comes from Tyndale's, most of that likely directly came from use of the Bishops' Bible and from use of the Geneva Bible and thus only indirectly from Tyndale's.

The 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible was the starting English text used in the making of the KJV.

 

[rsr]

It seems I was misled. Lay is from the first edition; rest is from the 1534-35 revision. So it seems unlikely, given the scarcity of the first edition, that it was the source of the rendering. (Of course, just because the bishop hunted down the first edition doesn't mean that some scholars didn't manage to collect some for their own use.)