John 10:16--one flock or one fold?

[Logos1560]

Concerning Johns 10:16, A. T. Robertson observed that the Latin Vulgate's use of one Latin word for these two Greek words "confused this distinction" and "helped Roman Catholic assumptions" (Word Pictures, V, p. 181). Marvin Vincent 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). Ralph Earle pointed out that “the Roman Catholic church has insisted that it is the only true ’fold,’ into which everyone must come in order to be saved” (Word Meanings, p. 89). In his sermon entitled “Christian Unity,“ Alfred Plummer stated: “The doctrine, that the sheep not in the fold must be brought in, until there is one fold, with all the sheep penned within, gave immense support to the claims of the Roman Catholic Church to be the one church, outside which there is no salvation” (Modern Sermons, VII, p. 180). The Contemporary Review maintained that “the favourite Catholic text for unity, ‘There shall be one fold’ is a mistranslation. It ought to be ‘one flock’” (Vol. 15, 1870, p. 291). In the volume on John in The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, A. Plummer asserted: “The change from ‘flock’ to ‘fold’ has been all loss, leading to calamitous misunderstanding” (p. 217). In his sermon, Alfred Plummer stated: “It is impossible to estimate the mischief that has been done by this unhappy substitution of ‘fold’ for ‘flock’ in this important text” (Modern Sermons, Vol. VII, p. 180).

Henry Fox maintained that the rendering “one fold” at John 10:16 in the KJV “has been quite a stock argument with the High Church party” (On the Revision, p. 19). Burlington Wale observed: “The Church of England is the fold; and of course, if there be but ‘one fold,’ all that are not members of the Church of England are out of ‘the fold.’ And so to establish this point, the Saviour is made to say what He does not say. He says there shall be one flock (poimnee), and not one fold” (Biblical Outlines, I, p. 218).

 

[Dave G]

And so to establish this point, the Saviour is made to say what He does not say. He says there shall be one flock (poimnee), and not one fold” (Biblical Outlines, I, p. 218).

In the English, a sheepfold is a sheep pen:

noun
noun: fold; plural noun: folds
a pen or enclosure in a field where livestock, especially sheep, can be kept.

A "fold" is also:
a group or community, especially when perceived as the locus of a particular set of aims and values.

A flock.
Here is John 10:16 in the AV:

"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, [and] one shepherd." ( John 10:16 ).

Note:
Here I see that the Lord is speaking of what He revealed to Paul in Romans 11:13-32, 1 Corinthians 1:24, Galatians 3:23-29 and Ephesians 2:11-22...

That the Gentile believers should be grafted in to the olive tree with spiritual Israel;
Spoken of in Romans 11:1-8 as a remnant according to the election of grace.

 

[Dave G]

Which brings us to the OP:

1) That said, "αὐλή" , transliterated into the English as "aulē" and meaning "court" / "open court" / "courtyard" and which is found in the first part of the verse, was translated by many before, during and after the "Reformation" as "fold" or "sheepfold", probably based on context or even because the word "fold" actually means, "group or community".
That said, the English words "court" or "courtyard" would have been more accurate to the Greek, IMO.

But to me, "fold" is perfectly acceptable, as in English the meaning of the word is general,
and would include a courtyard that has something in it...like sheep.


2) In the last part of the verse, "ποίμνη", transliterated into English as " poimnē" and meaning " flock", is translated by many during that same time period as "fold" yet again...I imagine for consistency.
Still, I think that "flock" would have been more accurate.
But to me, "fold" for "sheepfold" or "flock" is perfectly acceptable.


For comparison, the Reina-Valera Antigua ( Spanish ) uses "redil" ( sheep-fold ) in the first half, and "rebaño" ( flock ) in the second...
While the Louis Segond ( French ) uses "bergerie" ( sheep-pen ) for the first, and "troupeau" ( herd ) for the second.
A bit more literal in their uses, from my perspective.


As for the arguments between the Roman Catholic Church being the "one fold", and the Church of England being the "one fold", I hold that neither of them are.
The fold is spiritual, not physical.
In other words, the church is made up of all saved Jews and Gentiles no matter where they are,
and no matter what "denomination" they find themselves ( initially or temporarily ) in.

They are known to God, loved by God, and they have His Spirit as both Comforter and Teacher.
Everyone who is saved and has God's Spirit in them are the sons and daughters of God...no matter what the name on the building says.


And so, I feel that the Saviour is accurately portrayed in the many translations in the English, the French and the Spanish ( at the very least ) as saying that one "court" / "fold" ( group or community ) shall become part of the greater "fold" ( group or community ), and both shall have one shepherd.

How the Roman Church and English Church use the verse as support that they are the one true church is up to them...
But to me, the verse stands just fine with the wording as it is in the English.

Could it have been translated better or more accurately into English where "fold" is used instead of "flock" for "ποίμνη" ( poimnē )?
Perhaps.
But "fold", meaning "group or community", is a synonym for "flock", meaning "group or community";
Therefore, I see no real contradiction with many of the translations in this verse with their use of "fold".



May God bless you in many ways.

 

[Logos1560]

Henry Alford wrote: “The one flock, is remarkable--not one fold, as characteristically, but erroneously rendered in A. V.;--not ONE FOLD, but ONE FLOCK: not one exclusive enclosure of an outward church, but one flock, all knowing the one Shepherd and known of Him” (New Testament for English Readers, I, p. 556). Alford asserted: “The rendering’ fold’ instead of ‘flock’ here is a grievous and important error” (How to Study the NT, p. 152). Alford contended: “It is impossible to acquit King James’ translators of some unfairness here. Tyndale’s version, which they had before them, had the faithful rendering as far as this word is concerned; but they followed the erroneous one” (Ibid.).

John Brown wrote: “Sometime a change made from Tyndale was a change decidedly for the worse; as in the case of John 10:16 where ’there shall be one flock’ was altered to ’one fold’” (History, p. 50).

In his introduction to his modern-spelling edition of Tyndale’s 1534 New Testament, David Daniell referred to “Tyndale’s correct translation of the last words of John 10:16 as ‘one flock and one shepherd,‘ which became in the Latin-based versions, including our Authorised Version, ‘one fold and one shepherd’” (p. xxi).

 

[Logos1560]

Concerning John 10:16, Melancthon Jacobus wrote: “The term here rendered fold, means flock, and is altogether different from the term rendered ‘fold’ in the context” (Notes on the Gospels: John, p. 183).

.Concerning this verse in his commentary on John, Oliver B. Greene maintained that “the Greek reads ‘one flock’” (II, p. 133).

In his commentary on John, J. Vernon McGee noted: “It is really ‘flock’ (poimne), not ‘fold’ (aule) in this second phrase” (I, p. 164).
In its note for this verse, the Ryrie Study Bible has “fold--better, flock” (p. 1607).

A. C. Gaebelein asserted that “the Authorized Version is incorrect in using the word ‘fold’” (Annotated Bible, VI, p. 215). In his commentary on the Gospel of John, Arno Clemens Gaebelein wrote: “The authorized version states ‘one fold,’ but this is a serious mistake. Not one fold, but one flock, not an exclusive enclosure of an outward church—but one flock, all knowing the one Shepherd, and known of Him” (p. 185).

 

[Yeshua1]

Concerning John 10:16, Melancthon Jacobus wrote: “The term here rendered fold, means flock, and is altogether different from the term rendered ‘fold’ in the context” (Notes on the Gospels: John, p. 183).

.Concerning this verse in his commentary on John, Oliver B. Greene maintained that “the Greek reads ‘one flock’” (II, p. 133).

In his commentary on John, J. Vernon McGee noted: “It is really ‘flock’ (poimne), not ‘fold’ (aule) in this second phrase” (I, p. 164).
In its note for this verse, the Ryrie Study Bible has “fold--better, flock” (p. 1607).

A. C. Gaebelein asserted that “the Authorized Version is incorrect in using the word ‘fold’” (Annotated Bible, VI, p. 215). In his commentary on the Gospel of John, Arno Clemens Gaebelein wrote: “The authorized version states ‘one fold,’ but this is a serious mistake. Not one fold, but one flock, not an exclusive enclosure of an outward church—but one flock, all knowing the one Shepherd, and known of Him” (p. 185).

That would be admitting though that the Kjv got it wrong here!

 

[rlvaughn]

In his sermon entitled “Christian Unity,“ Alfred Plummer stated: “The doctrine, that the sheep not in the fold must be brought in, until there is one fold, with all the sheep penned within, gave immense support to the claims of the Roman Catholic Church to be the one church, outside which there is no salvation” (Modern Sermons, VII, p. 180). The Contemporary Review maintained that “the favourite Catholic text for unity, ‘There shall be one fold’ is a mistranslation. It ought to be ‘one flock’” (Vol. 15, 1870, p. 291).

The English churchmen who translated the 1560 Geneva Bible had fled the country to Geneva during the reign of Roman Catholic Mary I (Bloody Mary). In translating ποιμνη as shepefold, I doubt they were trying to bolster Roman Catholic assumptions. More than likely they thought it to be the correct translation in that context.

 

[Logos1560]

More than likely they thought it to be the correct translation in that context.

Actually more likely they followed or were influenced by the Roman Catholic Vulgate.

The translators of that day including the KJV translators had grown up reading and studying the Latin Vulgate. They were sometimes greater scholars in Latin than in Hebrew or Greek. They often translated through the medium of Latin as they used Hebrew-Latin lexicons and Greek-Latin lexicons.

English translations based on the Latin Vulgate introduced the use of the same rendering for the two different Greek words. Later translations based more on the original-languages still retained unchanged many of the Latin-based renderings. There were more revisions than original, new translations of the original-language texts.

It is based on the context that many scholars think that the use of the same rendering for the two different Greek words is a mistake.

 

[rlvaughn]

I have not suggested they did not know or consider the Latin same rendering, as I am sure they also knew Tyndale's distinct rendering. I am suggesting there was no conspiracy to cloud the text, and that the translators believed "fold" was the correct translation. In the other thread I mentioned that fold contains the meaning "flock" in its semantic range. However, the Geneva translators choice of "shepefold" indicates they did think it meant the enclosure here (at least figuratively). I am not aware that "sheepfold" ever has the meaning "sheepflock." though it might just be that I am not aware of it.

Looking over the Septuagint, it appears that at least once they associate ποιμνίων with fold -- translating Mikla'ah ποιμνίων τῶν προβάτων in Psalm 78:70 (Psalm 77 in the Septuagint). Brenton, translating this from Greek to English, goes with "flocks of sheep." However, almost every English translator translates Mikla'ah as fold, sheepfold, sheep pen. So it seems to me that at least some Greeks thought ποιμνίων could carry the meaning fold (though I suppose it also could be that they thought Mikla'ah could carry the meaning flock).

Long story short, for me, is that it is not cut and dry that "fold" is an out and out mistranslation as the writers you quote seem to think.

 

[Logos1560]

It is not cut and dry that the two different Greek words used in John 10:16 were supposedly used with the same exact meaning instead of with a distinction in meaning.

 

[Jerome]

However, the Geneva translators choice of "shepefold" indicates they did think it meant the enclosure here (at least figuratively). I am not aware that "sheepfold" ever has the meaning "sheepflock." though it might just be that I am not aware of it.

I just checked the OED and it does report meaning 2 (Obs.) is "a flock of sheep".

Thank you for bringing up Geneva. I was waiting to see if the OP ever would.

 

[rlvaughn]

I just checked the OED and it does report meaning 2 (Obs.) is "a flock of sheep".

Thanks for checking OED. I don't have access/subscription, and none of the "cheap" dictionaries I checked gave that meaning (or any other meaning, for that matter).

Thank you for bringing up Geneva. I was waiting to see if the OP ever would.

You're welcome.

 

[rlvaughn]

It is not cut and dry that the two different Greek words used in John 10:16 were supposedly used with the same exact meaning instead of with a distinction in meaning.

Neither did I suggest it was. Some of the quotes you give seemed to me to suggest it is cut and dry for their side, though.

...carelessness...unfairness...

Do you really think the Geneva and KJV translators were careless and unfair in their rendering? Maybe they just had a different opinion of the meaning, even if they are in the minority currently?

 

[Yeshua1]

Actually more likely they followed or were influenced by the Roman Catholic Vulgate.

The translators of that day including the KJV translators had grown up reading and studying the Latin Vulgate. They were sometimes greater scholars in Latin than in Hebrew or Greek. They often translated through the medium of Latin as they used Hebrew-Latin lexicons and Greek-Latin lexicons.

English translations based on the Latin Vulgate introduced the use of the same rendering for the two different Greek words. Later translations based more on the original-languages still retained unchanged many of the Latin-based renderings. There were more revisions than original, new translations of the original-language texts.

It is based on the context that many scholars think that the use of the same rendering for the two different Greek words is a mistake.

If they were indeed bring over to the Kjv then the Vulgate rendering, would that not mean made a mistake in their translation choice here?

 

[Yeshua1]

It is not cut and dry that the two different Greek words used in John 10:16 were supposedly used with the same exact meaning instead of with a distinction in meaning.

They were listed both as possible ways to translate!

 

[Logos1560]

Do you really think the Geneva and KJV translators were careless and unfair in their rendering?

They were biased and too much influenced by the Latin Vulgate (perhaps even following the Latin Vulgate) at John 10:16 perhaps because use of the rendering "fold" would be in line with their own doctrinal views.

While the KJV translators should have been aware of Tyndale's accurate rendering "flock" at John 10"16, they did not even acknowledge it with a marginal note even though they translated the same Greek word as "flock" in other places.

The KJV translators themselves translated poimne as "flock" at Matthew 26:31, Luke 2:8, and 1 Corinthians 9:7. The KJV translators also translated another form of this word poimnion as “flock” at Luke 12:32, Acts 20:28, 29, and 1 Peter 5:2, 3.

 

[Yeshua1]

They were biased and too much influenced by the Latin Vulgate at John 10:16 perhaps because use of rendering "fold" would be in line with their own doctrinal views.

While the KJV translators should have been aware of Tyndale's accurate rendering "flock" at John 10"16, they did not even acknowledge it with a marginal note even though they translated the same Greek word as "flock" in other places.

It sounds like their minds were already bent of having it stating fold there period!

 

[rlvaughn]

They were biased and too much influenced by the Latin Vulgate (perhaps even following the Latin Vulgate) at John 10:16 perhaps because use of the rendering "fold" would be in line with their own doctrinal views.

Fortunately, we have had no biased translators before or after, and those who disagree with them have no bias of their own.

While the KJV translators should have been aware of Tyndale's accurate rendering "flock" at John 10"16, they did not even acknowledge it with a marginal note...

Nor did the Geneva translators, at least in this edition. Should the Geneva translators have been aware of Tyndale's rendering "flock" in John 10:16?

The KJV translators themselves translated poimne as "flock" at Matthew 26:31, Luke 2:8, and 1 Corinthians 9:7. The KJV translators also translated another form of this word poimnion as “flock” at Luke 12:32, Acts 20:28, 29, and 1 Peter 5:2, 3.

Unless the Greek word has no range of meaning beyond flock, this in itself does not prove that the word could not be translated correctly "fold" in John 10:16.

 

[Van]

John 10:16
I have other sheep that do not come from this sheepfold.I must bring them too, and they will listen to my voice,so that there will be one flock and one shepherd. (NET)

John 10:16
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. (KJV)

The Greek word that the NET translates as sheepfold is the same Greek word the KJV translates as fold. But the Greek word the NET translates as flock is a different word, so the KJV translates two different words as if they meant the same thing.

However a sheep-pen or enclosed area to keep sheep is not the same as a flock or group of sheep. The widely accepted view is the sheep from the sheep-pen are Jews, and the "other sheep" are Gentiles, but once "in Christ" there will be no difference, but just one flock or body of Christians.

Translating different things as if they were the same thing hides the inspired message of God under a blanket of incompetence or malfeasance.

 

[Hark]

@Logos1560 & @rlvaughn

John 10:1-16 is about false prophets that will cause some believers to go astray as coming in between them and Jesus per John 10:8 That can be applied to the RCC but that can also applied to putting the Holy Spirit as if He is also a door to coming to God the Father by when He is not because Jesus is the only way per John 14:6 in relation to John 10:1

One can discern this with Him in how by climbing up another way, they are a robber and a thief; hence workers of iniquities for how they wind up following a stranger's voice in John 10:1-5; hence tongues without interpretation as supposedly gained by what they assume was the Holy Spirit coming over them later in life as a saved believer but it was not. They apply the "Holy Spirit" as a means to speak to God for them thus allowing it to come between them and the Son, when they should be praying to Jesus Christ & the Father by the Son's name so they know what they had prayed for to give the Father thanks in Jesus's name..

This goes to John 10:16 as by that iniquity, there are 2 folds in His kingdom; the ones that follow His voice and the other that follows the stranger's voice. Those who follow the stranger's voice is not of that fold that followed His voice but yet He must bring them because they are His sheep & He called them as such for why He must bring them.

So if you discern with Him how those who have gone astray & left behind were not of the fold that followed His voice, but a stranger's voice, then note how Jesus will make them hear Him and be of the one fold & one shepherd by resurrecting those saints left behind as they shall literally hear His voice & serve Him as the King of kings after the great tribulation.

John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

All the words are applied for why I believe it is specifically about that apostasy with the focus on what they assume is the Holy Spirit coming over them later in their lives as saved believer bringing that tongue for "private use" because it comes with no interpretation but is gibberish nonsense; hence a stranger's voice. It is ironic that the RCC does teach believers to seek gifts by asking from the Holy Spirit Himself so the RCC not only puts themselves between them and the door, but the invitation to go to Holy Spirit as well instead of to the Son in prayer since He alone answers prayers so the father may be glorified in the son for answers to prayers per John 14:13-14. The Holy Spirit in all that He speaks does gives credit & glory to the Son per John 16:13-15

Jesus warned believers that false prophets will broaden the way in coming to God, for why not taking heed to His words of John 14:6 is why they are falling per lack of self control in these movements of the spirit in Matthew 7:24-27 in spite of the spectacular phenomenon in Matthew 7:21-23 happening within by that iniquity..

Jesus stated the solution to avoid that iniquity in Luke 13:24 to avoid being eft behind from the Marriage Supper in Heaven in Luke 13:24-30 and that is by striving to enter thru the strait gate; hence keep your eyes on the Son in coming to God the Father for anything in prayer, fellowship, & worship because the Bridegroom will be coming soon for the abiding bride.