What Greek text did Jerome use?

[rlvaughn]

What Greek text or texts did Jerome use when he prepared the Latin Vulgate translation? The Interactive Bible Website quotes The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, saying:

Jerome...seems to have used as the basis of his revision a Greek MS closely akin to the *Codex Sinaiticus. That he revised the remaining books of the NT is unlikely.” (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Vulgate, 2005 AD)

Is that the last word? Anything more detailed or specific?

 

[Yeshua1]

What Greek text or texts did Jerome use when he prepared the Latin Vulgate translation? The Interactive Bible Website quotes The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, saying: Is that the last word? Anything more detailed or specific?

so the Critical Greek text was basis of the Vulgate?

 

[rlvaughn]

so the Critical Greek text was basis of the Vulgate?

I would say no, but that the inspectors think it generally corresponds better to Sinaiticus than to others. Perhaps someone else on BB has more knowledge/information.

 

[Conan]

He made his New Testament Vulgate from Old Latin manuscripts, consulting Greek manuscripts. Seems like I remember Metzger or the Alands saying Greek manuscripts like Alexandrinus . Also Jerome may have not done the whole New Testament.

 

[rlvaughn]

Good points. Often we speak and write in abbreviated ways that in the end may be insufficient or confusing. While we speak of Jerome's Vulgate, he probably did not do all the translation. I think there is a debate on how much he did, and who might have translated the rest. And even speaking of Bible versions as translations often doesn't catch the details, where translations like the Vulgate, the KJV, and RV certainly didn't start from scratch, but built on the work of previous translations.

Though the Vulgate NT is usually thought to use manuscripts like the Sinaiticus and/or Alexandrinus, something I noticed a few days back was that verses (such Acts 8:37) that are included in the Vulgate that don't match that theory. Simple explanations could be that they were brought over from the Vetus Latina, or that the translators just preferred another reading.

 

[Logos1560]

KJV-only authors make the following generalized claims about the Greek texts that would underlie the Latin Vulgate of Jerome.

Troy Clark claimed that the Douay-Rheims “was translated strictly from the Critical Text Latin Vulgate bible of Rome,” and he listed it in his “Critical text” stream of Bibles (Perfect Bible, pp. 267, 296). Peter Ruckman acknowledged that “the textual basis of the Douay-Rheims is Jerome’s Latin Vulgate,” but he also claimed in his endnotes that “the Greek text of the Rheims Jesuit bible was the Westcott and Hort Greek text” (Biblical Scholarship, pp. 162, 517). Peter Ruckman referred to “the Greek text of Rome (Jesuit Rheims)” (King James Onlyism, p. 46). Peter Ruckman mentioned “Satan’s interest in reinstituting the Dark Age Jesuit Rheims Bible of 1582” (Alexandrian Cult, Part Eight, p. 2). Jim Taylor asserted that “Jerome’s Latin Vulgate generally agrees with the Westcott and Hort Text” (In Defense of the TR, p. 204). James Sightler maintained that Jerome “gave us the Latin Vulgate which was based on Greek manuscripts of the Vaticanus type” (Testimony Founded, p. 12). James Sightler claimed: “Jerome had used manuscripts resembling B and Aleph to prepare the Vulgate,” and “There are many other instances where the Rheims-Douay approaches the reading of the critical text” (pp. 130, 131). J. J. Ray asserted: “In the minds of those who are well informed; the Latin Vulgate; the Vaticanus; the Sinaiticus; the Hexapla; Jerome; Eusebius; and Origen; are terms which are inseparable” (God Wrote Only One Bible, p. 19). J. J. Ray claimed that “Jerome’s Vulgate is largely in agreement with these two manuscripts [Vaticanus, Sinaiticus]” (p. 20). James Rasbeary declared: “The Douay-Rheims is, of course, very corrupt, just like its source text and the men that translated it” (What’s Wrong, p. 137). James Rasbeary alleged that “they [two ancient manuscripts Vaticanus and Sinaiticus] are no different than the Catholic Vulgate produced by Jerome” (p. 160).

 

[Yeshua1]

KJV-only authors make the following generalized claims about the Greek texts that would underlie the Latin Vulgate of Jerome.

Troy Clark claimed that the Douay-Rheims “was translated strictly from the Critical Text Latin Vulgate bible of Rome,” and he listed it in his “Critical text” stream of Bibles (Perfect Bible, pp. 267, 296). Peter Ruckman acknowledged that “the textual basis of the Douay-Rheims is Jerome’s Latin Vulgate,” but he also claimed in his endnotes that “the Greek text of the Rheims Jesuit bible was the Westcott and Hort Greek text” (Biblical Scholarship, pp. 162, 517). Peter Ruckman referred to “the Greek text of Rome (Jesuit Rheims)” (King James Onlyism, p. 46). Peter Ruckman mentioned “Satan’s interest in reinstituting the Dark Age Jesuit Rheims Bible of 1582” (Alexandrian Cult, Part Eight, p. 2). Jim Taylor asserted that “Jerome’s Latin Vulgate generally agrees with the Westcott and Hort Text” (In Defense of the TR, p. 204). James Sightler maintained that Jerome “gave us the Latin Vulgate which was based on Greek manuscripts of the Vaticanus type” (Testimony Founded, p. 12). James Sightler claimed: “Jerome had used manuscripts resembling B and Aleph to prepare the Vulgate,” and “There are many other instances where the Rheims-Douay approaches the reading of the critical text” (pp. 130, 131). J. J. Ray asserted: “In the minds of those who are well informed; the Latin Vulgate; the Vaticanus; the Sinaiticus; the Hexapla; Jerome; Eusebius; and Origen; are terms which are inseparable” (God Wrote Only One Bible, p. 19). J. J. Ray claimed that “Jerome’s Vulgate is largely in agreement with these two manuscripts [Vaticanus, Sinaiticus]” (p. 20). James Rasbeary declared: “The Douay-Rheims is, of course, very corrupt, just like its source text and the men that translated it” (What’s Wrong, p. 137). James Rasbeary alleged that “they [two ancient manuscripts Vaticanus and Sinaiticus] are no different than the Catholic Vulgate produced by Jerome” (p. 160).

Interesting to me that the majority of the greek source text being used by the early and latter Church fathers and others appeared to be akin to our Critical greek text, so per the KJVO, did God not pteseve it until Eramus and his TR then?

 

[rlvaughn]

KJV-only authors make the following generalized claims about the Greek texts that would underlie the Latin Vulgate of Jerome.

Are you posting that as an accurate assessment, or something else?

 

[Logos1560]

Are you posting that as an accurate assessment, or something else?

Since I clearly noted that KJV-only authors were making "generalized claims" and did not say that they were making accurate assertions or stating facts, it was obvious that I did not suggest that their claims were accurate.

How are you unaware of the fact that I know that KJV-only authors often make claims that they do not prove to be true?

 

[Logos1560]

Jerome is said to have translated the Old Testament of his Latin Vulgate from the Hebrew while the Old Latin OT was translated from the Greek Septuagint.

In his 2016 research concerning the Latin NT, H. A. G. Houghton asserted: "There are several indications that Jerome was responsible for revision of the Gospels only and not the rest of the New Testament. When he discusses questions of translation affecting the Gospels he quotes forms matching his revised version, but he never cites readings characteristic of the Vulgate in the other New Testament books. What is more, in his commentary on four of the Pauline epistles, he criticizes the existing Latin translation and provides his own alternative" (The Latin New Testament: A Guide to its Early History, Texts, and Manuscripts, p. 34).

Concerning the Latin Vulgate, H. A. G. Houghton also asserted: "There is a noticeable difference in translation technique between the Gospels and the other writings" (p. 41).

Houghton claimed that "the alterations made to Acts and the Catholic Epistles reflect a Greek text similar to that of the early majuscule manuscripts rather than the later Greek text used by Jerome in the Gospels" (p. 41).

 

[Logos1560]

According to Houghton's extensive research concerning the Latin New Testament including the Latin Vulgate NT, the underlying Greek text for the Gospels in the Latin Vulgate may be different than the underlying Greek text for the rest of its NT books. Thus, the Greek text used by Jerome in revising the Gospels in Latin may be different from whomever did the revising of the other NT books.

 

[37818]

Well, if the family 35 Greek New Testament best represents the original Greek New Testament text that would suggest that Jerome may not have been that kind of scholar, being he was working for his church 405AD.

 

[Dave G]

What Greek text or texts did Jerome use when he prepared the Latin Vulgate translation? The Interactive Bible Website quotes The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, saying:

It's been said that he used those of Alexandrian test type, if you believe any of what written here:
Vetus Latina - Wikipedia
Vulgate - Wikipedia

Is that the last word? Anything more detailed or specific?

Nothing that I would care to share even if I did know, given the climate of this forum and the attitudes of most of those who post on it regarding this subject.

In other words,
Anything that I would dig up and submit would only be vehemently opposed and even generally ridiculed ( despite the Lord's commands against such behavior ), as I am considered to be "KJVO" by most on this board...

Even though I am instead "TR-O" when it comes to the Greek and "KJV-Best-in English" when it comes to translations.

I would say no, but that the inspectors think it generally corresponds better to Sinaiticus than to others.

I would say "yes" but only in a rough sense, given what I know of Codex Sinaiticus' origins and apparent text-type.

In fact, Sinaiticus' age corresponds to very nearly the same time frame as Jerome's revision / update of the Vetus Latina ( the Vulgate ), and while I believe that he may not have used it, he probably used manuscripts that were very similar to both it and Codex Vaticanus.

 

[Marooncat79]

Jerome used the KJV!!

read you Bibles

 

[Conan]

Well, if the family 35 Greek New Testament best represents the original Greek New Testament text that would suggest that Jerome may not have been that kind of scholar, being he was working for his church 405AD.

He may have never seen a family 35 greek manuscript before. Seems in the Gospels Jerome is halfway between the Byzantine Alexandrian. Maybe leaning a little more towards Byzantine. But sometimes agreeing with one another time the other.

 

[rlvaughn]

Since I clearly noted that KJV-only authors were making "generalized claims" and did not say that they were making accurate assertions or stating facts, it was obvious that I did not suggest that their claims were accurate.

How are you unaware of the fact that I know that KJV-only authors often make claims that they do not prove to be true?

I am aware of your modus operandi. The question raised in my mind as to why you posted that was whether you had any input about what Greek text or texts Jerome might have used, or just wanted to steer this into some discussion about KJV-only authors.

 

[Conan]

I think I remember reading a scholar, perhaps Westcott, that said Jerome used Greek manuscripts (or a manuscript) like Codex Alexandrinus. In the Gospels it is the earliest Byzantine Text manuscript. Of course even codex's Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have Byzantine readings in the Gospels.

 

[Logos1560]

I am aware of your modus operandi. .

Perhaps you merely assume to know my intentions and motives in advocating truth so that you in effect misrepresent what you claim is my modus operandi

KJV-only authors made claims that concerned the subject or question of this thread.
What would be wrong in seeking to apply the same standards to the claims of KJV-only authors as are applied to other authors? Why should what KJV-only authors claim be avoided or dodged concerning subjects about which they make claims?

In this thread, I also provided quotations from a leading authority or expert concerning the Latin New Testament.

 

[Logos1560]

Nothing that I would care to share even if I did know, given the climate of this forum and the attitudes of most of those who post on it regarding this subject.

Perhaps your own attitude may be no better than those whom you accuse. Are you making any effort to improve the climate of this forum? How do you improve the climate by throwing out vague, unsupported accusations against the forum and other posters?

Instead of making unsupported allegations against assumed attitudes and intentions, why not discuss actual statements that you assume to be incorrect and then prove those statements to be incorrect?

Possibly some of those whom you may accuse may be more willing to accept the truth and verifiable facts regardless of who posts them than you may be.

 

[rlvaughn]

Perhaps you merely assume to know my intentions and motives in advocating truth so that you in effect misrepresent what you claim is my modus operandi

Modus operandi refers to your method, not your intentions or motives. The fact that you commonly post about KJVO topics led me to wonder about your intent (post # 8) and ask you about it.

KJV-only authors made claims that concerned the subject or question of this thread.
What would be wrong in seeking to apply the same standards to the claims of KJV-only authors as are applied to other authors? Why should what KJV-only authors claim be avoided or dodged concerning subjects about which they make claims?

But the claims you posted you later indicate you do not believe to be accurate, so in effect you were not using them to answer "What Greek text or texts did Jerome use when he prepared the Latin Vulgate translation."

In this thread, I also provided quotations from a leading authority or expert concerning the Latin New Testament.

Yes, but that only came about 8 months after your post # 6 and my follow-up question to you about it.