The KJV & the Latin Vulgate

[evangelist6589]

I remember reading somewhere that the KJV translates a bit from the Vulgate. I remember comparing KJV Bibles (I have 3) and finding certain words in one version of the KJV but not in another that seems to have come from the vulgate. In SS we are studying Justification by Faith alone by RC Sproul from a Reformed perspective and the topic of the vulgate came up today. In discussion I was about to suggest that this is the reason why its best not to rely too much on the KJV since it translates a bit from the vulgate and why its better to use a more reliable version like the ESV, NASB, or NIV but I did not.

 

[Logos1560]

W. Edward Glenny noted: The TR has several Greek readings which did not exist before 1516 when Erasmus put them in the Bible, and it also differs from the Majority Text over 1800 times" (Bible Version Debate, p. 51). In the fourth edition of his book edited by Edward Miller, Scrivener pointed out that some portions of Erasmus's "self-made version" that are found "in no one known Greek manuscript whatever still cleave to our received text" (Plain Introduction, II, p. 184). John Reumann also maintained that Erasmus “at places actually inserted Greek words found in no Greek manuscripts, translating them himself on the basis of the Latin” (Romance, p. 85).

Jan Krans acknowledged: “Some verses and words in the Greek part of Erasmus’ editions were not derived from Greek manuscripts, but were based on the Vulgate text” (Beyond What is Written, p. 53). Krans asserted: “In Erasmus’ Greek text, a number of readings are adopted that cannot be found in any Greek manuscripts, or at least not in those which Erasmus had at his disposal” (p. 62). Krans maintained that “in the case of Acts Erasmus initially supposed that the Greek manuscripts he consulted suffered from omissions, while later, having consulted more sources, he came to doubt the Vulgate additions (Acts 8:37; 9:5-6; 10:6; 14:7; 23:25; 24:6-7) (p. 61, footnote 36).

Donald Brake also affirmed that “several of his [Erasmus’s] renderings do not appear in any known Greek manuscript” (Visual History of the English Bible, p. 93).

KJV defender R. B. Ouellette acknowledged that “there are some readings not found in existing Greek manuscripts” (More Sure Word, p. 148).

 

[agedman]

One of the many reasons why I prefer the NASB.

 

[Logos1560]

There are at least a few places where the textual criticism decisions involved in the making of the KJV may involve influence of the Latin Vulgate.

There would be a larger number of places where the translation decisions involved in the making of the KJV could involve influence of the Latin Vulgate.

It is known that the Hebrew-Latin lexicons and Greek-Latin lexicons available to and used by the KJV translators sometimes or even often had Latin definitions for Hebrew words or for Greek words that were borrowed from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome, which would be classified a corrupt translation according to typical KJV-only reasoning or according to the KJV-only two-streams-of-Bibles argument. Other Latin definitions in those Hebrew-Latin and Greek-Latin lexicons would have likely come from commentaries by unsaved Jews and from commentaries by Roman Catholic church fathers. In 1847, The Churchman’s Monthly Review maintained that “the Thesauraus of Santes Pagninus [1470-1541] was one of the earliest Hebrew Latin lexicons” (p. 129). This source noted that Pagninus was “a Jesuit” and that his lexicon “contains the Latin Vulgate translation of every word in the Hebrew Bible” (Ibid.). It also indicated that this lexicon by Pagninus was used by Protestants as well as by Roman Catholics. Bishop Grindal is said to have had a copy of an edition of the Lexicon of Pagninus printed in 1577 that he left to the library at Queen’s College at Oxford. David Norton observed that KJV translator Edward Lively had a copy of “Pagninus’s Thesaurus Lingue Sanctae” (KJB: Short History, p. 69). Jones, Moore, and Reid noted that KJV translator “Henry Savile himself gave to the library a copy of Pagninus’s Thesaurus Linguae Sanctae” (Moore, Manifold Greatness, p. 96). The author of Principles and Problems of Biblical Translation asserted that Reuchlin in his Hebrew-Latin dictionary or lexicon “gives the equivalent Latin expression, generally more than one, for every Hebrew word and then adduces examples for each meaning. These examples are naturally taken from the Old Testament; they are not quoted in Hebrew but in the Latin of the Vulgate” (pp. 76-77). David H. Price maintained that Johannes Reuchlin’s Hebrew-Latin lexicon in his Rudiments of Hebrew “rejected Jerome’s text in several hundred places” (Johannes Reuchlin, p. 61), which would suggest that it gave Jerome’s Latin renderings as definitions of Hebrew words in the thousands of other cases. R. Cunningham Didham contended that the “Hebrew lexicons of those days rather perpetuated the errors of the Vulgate than the sense of the Hebrew” (New Translation of the Psalms, p. 7). Didham added: “Even the Lexicon of the celebrated Sebastian Munster was no more than that, as Wolf assures us, the Latin words of the Vulgate” (Ibid.). Herbert Marsh noted: “When Sebastian Munster composed his Dictionarium Hebraicum, he added to each Hebrew word the sense in Latin. And whence did he derive those Latin senses? From the Vulgate” (Lectures, p. 521). Munster also compiled a Latin-Greek-Hebrew dictionary. Henry Kiddle and Alexander Schem maintained that until the 1800’s “the Greek language was studied through the medium of the Latin, and there were no Greek-English, but only Greek-Latin lexicons” (Cyclopaedia, p. 224). Paul Botley wrote: “Many scholars learnt Greek through the Vulgate, and compiled their elementary Greek-Latin lexica from a collation of the Vulgate Bible with its Greek equivalents. Consequently, the equations of the Vulgate often formed the basis of the lexica” (Latin Translation in the Renaissance, p. 96). Gail Riplinger admitted: “The few lexicons the KJB translators did use were generally in Latin, not English” (Hazardous Materials, p. 1187).

 

[evangelist6589]

Was the johannine comma one of those passages that existed in the Vulgate that is in the KJV?

W. Edward Glenny noted: The TR has several Greek readings which did not exist before 1516 when Erasmus put them in the Bible, and it also differs from the Majority Text over 1800 times" (Bible Version Debate, p. 51). In the fourth edition of his book edited by Edward Miller, Scrivener pointed out that some portions of Erasmus's "self-made version" that are found "in no one known Greek manuscript whatever still cleave to our received text" (Plain Introduction, II, p. 184). John Reumann also maintained that Erasmus “at places actually inserted Greek words found in no Greek manuscripts, translating them himself on the basis of the Latin” (Romance, p. 85).

Jan Krans acknowledged: “Some verses and words in the Greek part of Erasmus’ editions were not derived from Greek manuscripts, but were based on the Vulgate text” (Beyond What is Written, p. 53). Krans asserted: “In Erasmus’ Greek text, a number of readings are adopted that cannot be found in any Greek manuscripts, or at least not in those which Erasmus had at his disposal” (p. 62). Krans maintained that “in the case of Acts Erasmus initially supposed that the Greek manuscripts he consulted suffered from omissions, while later, having consulted more sources, he came to doubt the Vulgate additions (Acts 8:37; 9:5-6; 10:6; 14:7; 23:25; 24:6-7) (p. 61, footnote 36).

Donald Brake also affirmed that “several of his [Erasmus’s] renderings do not appear in any known Greek manuscript” (Visual History of the English Bible, p. 93).

KJV defender R. B. Ouellette acknowledged that “there are some readings not found in existing Greek manuscripts” (More Sure Word, p. 148).

 

[rsr]

Yes, but it's in the KJV because it's in the printed Greek texts that they used, not because it's in the Vulgate.

To Logos1560: Does your research allow you to determine which borrowings the KJV translators took from the Vulgate and which from the Vulgate-derived Rheims NT? And is there any indication which versions of the Vulgate that the KJV translators were using? For example, were they using old copies of Erasmus' diglot, the Complutensian polyglot, the Sistine or the Clementine?

 

[evangelist6589]

Yes, but it's in the KJV because it's in the printed Greek texts that they used, not because it's in the Vulgate.

To Logos1560: Does your research allow you to determine which borrowings the KJV translators took from the Vulgate and which from the Vulgate-derived Rheims NT? And is there any indication which versions of the Vulgate that the KJV translators were using? For example, were they using old copies of Erasmus' diglot, the Complutensian polyglot, the Sistine or the Clementine?

Actually in some places the KJV translates directly from the Vulgate and not from the Greek.

 

[JonC]

Actually in some places the KJV translates directly from the Vulgate and not from the Greek.

I think what @rsr is saying (he can correct me if I'm wrong) is that, while the Greek they used may have influences from the Vulgate, the translators were not using the Vulgate itself as a source.

 

[evangelist6589]

I think what @rsr is saying (he can correct me if I'm wrong) is that, while the Greek they used may have influences from the Vulgate, the translators were not using the Vulgate itself as a source.

I not once disagreed with that. But what I am saying is that the KJV has influence from the vulgate, while the NIV & ESV do not. Go ahead and ask Jordan or another KJVO advocate and they will go silent.

 

[JonC]

I not once disagreed with that. But what I am saying is that the KJV has influence from the vulgate, while the NIV & ESV do not. Go ahead and ask Jordan or another KJVO advocate and they will go silent.

I mean they didn't translate directly from the Vulgate.

 

[evangelist6589]

I mean they didn't translate directly from the Vulgate.

Incorrect. My notes say the following.

6. They did not totally follow the Textus Receptus, because at times they chose to use the readings from the Latin Vulgate and other Greek mss. (200 readins where Vulgate was relied upon; eg. Heb 10:23 – hold fast to the profession of our faith, TR has elpidos (hope))

 

[JonC]

Incorrect. My notes say the following.

6. They did not totally follow the Textus Receptus, because at times they chose to use the readings from the Latin Vulgate and other Greek mss. (200 readins where Vulgate was relied upon; eg. Heb 10:23 – hold fast to the profession of our faith, TR has elpidos (hope))

What I mean is that I think @rsr was saying that the reason the Vulgate made it's way into the KJV was that it made its way into the Greek text the translators were using when working on the translation. I am not saying that the Jerome and Tyndale were absent, but there is a difference between saying the translators used these as tools and saying they simply translated from the Vulgate. I was trying to clarify rsr's remark as I understood it because I thought you missed his point (as you have missed mine).

 

[rsr]

My question is whether we can tell if they translated directly from the Vulgate or from the Rheims or both. There are times that KJV readings agree with the Vulgate/Rheims and disagree with the printed Greek texts; in those cases it would be assumed that the translators took their alternate readings from the Vulgate or Rheims.

 

[rsr]

There is an obvious case of a Vulgate/Rheims source in Revelation; in this case, Erasmus did in fact translate from the Latin and put it in his Greek text because he did not have that section in the Greek.

In the case of the Comma Johanneum, Erasmus excluded it from his early editions because it was not in his Greek texts, though he later added it when it was found in the Greek.

 

[evangelist6589]

There is an obvious case of a Vulgate/Rheims source in Revelation; in this case, Erasmus did in fact translate from the Latin and put it in his Greek text because he did not have that section in the Greek.

In the case of the Comma Johanneum, Erasmus excluded it from his early editions because they were not in his Greek texts, though he later added it when it was found in the Greek.

So the KJV does borrow from the Latin instead of the Greek at times?

 

[Logos1560]

Does your research allow you to determine which borrowings the KJV translators took from the Vulgate and which from the Vulgate-derived Rheims NT?

It would be difficult to determine for certain whether the influence of the Latin Vulgate on the KJV was directly from an edition of the Latin Vulgate or was indirectly from Hebrew-Latin lexicons that sometimes used renderings of the Latin Vulgate as definitions of Hebrew words, from Greek-Latin lexicons that sometimes used renderings of the Latin Vulgate as definitions of Greek words, from one of the pre-1611 English Bibles [Tyndale's to Bishops'] that may have been influenced by the Latin Vulgate, or from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament. In some places, Miles Coverdale may have translated directly from the Latin Vulgate in his 1535 Coverdale's Bible or in the 1539 Great Bible.

One of the KJV translators acknowledged some consulting of the 1582 Rheims in his notes.

In considering the KJV as a revision of earlier English Bibles, the 1582 Rheims is typically given credit for any English renderings identical to its renderings that are found in the 1611 KJV while not being found in other pre-1611 English Bibles including even Coverdale's 1538 English New Testament translation from an edition of the Latin Vulgate.

In considering the KJV as also a translation, the Latin Vulgate would be considered the source in any places where KJV readings may depart from the Hebrew Old Testament or Greek New Testament to follow Latin Vulgate-based readings. The Latin Vulgate may have been the direct source or may have been the indirect source through one of the pre-1611 English Bibles, through one of the Textus Receptus editions when any readings may have been added to the Greek that were not found in any Greek NT manuscripts, or through a Hebrew-Latin or Greek-Latin lexicon.

 

[Logos1560]

James D. Price claimed that at Isaiah 19:10 all Hebrew manuscripts have a word which means "soul" while the KJV reads "fish" following the Latin Vulgate (Textual Emendations, pp. 16, 58; see also King James Onlyism, pp. 291, 409, 581). Arthur Farstad also maintained that the KJV followed the Latin Vulgate with its rendering "fish" at Isaiah 19:10 (NKJV: In the Great Tradition, p. 50). While the 1610 Catholic Douay version from the Latin Vulgate has "fishes" in this verse, the 1853 English translation of the Hebrew by Isaac Leeser, the 1864 Jewish School and Family Bible by Abraham Benisch, the 1916 English Version of the Scriptures according to the Masoretic Text by Alexander Harkavy, and the 1917 English translation of the Masoretic Text by Jews have "soul" as does The Interlinear Bible.

The influence of the Latin Vulgate could have been indirect, direct, or both indirect and direct. Miles Coverdale had used the rendering “fish” in his 1540 Great Bible, and it may have been his translation of the Latin Vulgate‘s rendering. The Bishops’ Bible kept “fish” from the Great Bible, and the Bishops‘ Bible may have been the direct English source of the KJV‘s rendering. James D. Price clearly acknowledged: “Some of the emendations currently in the King James Version were made by English translators prior to 1611. It may be assumed that the King James translators approved some of the emendations made by their predecessors and allowed them to remain uncorrected” (King James Onlyism, p. 282). On the other hand, the Geneva Bible translators rendered the Hebrew word in this verse as "heart." In many instances as may be the case here, the Geneva Bible translators are said to have restored "the literal meaning of the Hebrew text which had been obscured, through ignorance or through following secondary sources, in all the earlier English versions" (Daiches, KJV of the English Bible, p. 179). The KJV translators usually translated this same Hebrew word in other passages as "soul" (475 times), "life" (117 times), “person” (29 times), “mind” (15 times), or “heart” (15 times). The 1611 KJV had a marginal note for "fish:" "Heb. of living things." The Companion Bible's note at Isaiah 19:10 stated: "or, work for wages shall be grieved in soul. Fish=souls. Heb. nephesh" (p. 954). KJV defender Edward Hills acknowledged: "Sometimes also the influence of the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate is discernible in the King James Old Testament" (KJV Defended, p. 223). Is Isaiah 19:10 a possible or even a likely example of a direct or indirect influence of the Latin Vulgate on the KJV translators? Does the NKJV accurately translate this Hebrew word with its rendering “soul” at Isaiah 19:10? Will KJV defenders give the same latitude to the NKJV translators that they evidently give to the KJV translators? If the KJV had the rendering “soul” at Isaiah 19:10 and if the NKJV had the rendering “fish,” would Waite claim that this change of noun was a dynamic equivalency?

 

[Logos1560]

A few Old Testament renderings that likely involve influence of the Latin Vulgate:

Genesis 6:5
God--Great Bible from Latin Vulgate influence & 1611 edition of the KJV

several verses
unicornis--Latin Vulgate; unicorn or unicorns--KJV

Deut. 14:5
pygargus--Latin Vulgate; pygarg--KJV

Isaiah 14:12
lucifer--Latin Vulgate and several KJV editions in the 1600's from the 1629 Cambridge and including a few KJV editions in the 1700's ;
Lucifer--KJV

 

[Logos1560]

Another example of where it is sometimes claimed that the Latin Vulgate influenced the KJV is at Lamentations 2:20. For example, in a marginal note at this verse, the KJV-NKJV Parallel Reference Bible suggested that the source of the KJV’s rendering “a span long” was the Vulgate (p. 1019). R. Payne Smith maintained that “children of a span long” is “the rendering of the Vulgate and Aquila, but it has little to recommend it” (Cook, Bible Commentary, V, p. 591). James D. Price indicated that the reading “children a span long” was an unjustifiable emendation supported only by the Latin Vulgate (King James Onlyism, p. 582). These assertions would relate to the KJV as a translation and not as a revision of the pre-1611 English Bibles. If these claims are accurate, the influence of the Vulgate here may be indirect since the KJV kept the rendering of some of the earlier English Bibles such as Bishops‘, Geneva, Great, and Coverdale‘s. Wycliffe’s Bible from the Latin has the following rendering: “little children at the measure of an hand.”

The KJV translators themselves gave in their marginal note for this phrase the following acceptable, alternative translation of the Hebrew: “swaddled with their hands.” This rendering in their marginal note is similar to the one that some sources maintain is the accurate translation of the Hebrew. The Liberty Annotated Study Bible asserted that the meaning of the Masoretic Text here was “they have cuddled” (p. 1188). Benjamin Blayney translated it as “little ones dandled on their hands” in his translation of Jeremiah and Lamentations (p. 207). The 1917 English translation of the Masoretic text by Jews translated the same phrase as “children that are dandled in the hands.” The Theological Wordbook of the O. T. has the following definition for tippuhim: “dandling” (p. 352). Isaac Leeser’s 1853 translation of the Hebrew was “babies they have tenderly nursed.” Abraham Benisch’s 1864 translation was “children of tender nursing.“ Green’s Concise Lexicon defined it as “tender care” and indicated the connection of this Hebrew word with the Hebrew word translated “swaddled” at Lamentations 2:22. The Ryrie Study Bible has the following note for this phrase: “who had been tenderly cared for” (p. 1177). Haak’s 1657 English translation of the Dutch Bible translated the phrase as follows: “little children that are carried upon the hands.”

 

[Yeshua1]

W. Edward Glenny noted: The TR has several Greek readings which did not exist before 1516 when Erasmus put them in the Bible, and it also differs from the Majority Text over 1800 times" (Bible Version Debate, p. 51). In the fourth edition of his book edited by Edward Miller, Scrivener pointed out that some portions of Erasmus's "self-made version" that are found "in no one known Greek manuscript whatever still cleave to our received text" (Plain Introduction, II, p. 184). John Reumann also maintained that Erasmus “at places actually inserted Greek words found in no Greek manuscripts, translating them himself on the basis of the Latin” (Romance, p. 85).

Jan Krans acknowledged: “Some verses and words in the Greek part of Erasmus’ editions were not derived from Greek manuscripts, but were based on the Vulgate text” (Beyond What is Written, p. 53). Krans asserted: “In Erasmus’ Greek text, a number of readings are adopted that cannot be found in any Greek manuscripts, or at least not in those which Erasmus had at his disposal” (p. 62). Krans maintained that “in the case of Acts Erasmus initially supposed that the Greek manuscripts he consulted suffered from omissions, while later, having consulted more sources, he came to doubt the Vulgate additions (Acts 8:37; 9:5-6; 10:6; 14:7; 23:25; 24:6-7) (p. 61, footnote 36).

Donald Brake also affirmed that “several of his [Erasmus’s] renderings do not appear in any known Greek manuscript” (Visual History of the English Bible, p. 93).

KJV defender R. B. Ouellette acknowledged that “there are some readings not found in existing Greek manuscripts” (More Sure Word, p. 148).

Very hard to see from this how the KJVO can claim the TR greek text IS the word of God, as the KJV translators when they made their version, used other sources that just it.