I have no sources that say they used the Great Bible as any more basis than they used Tyndale's or Olivetan's.
One rendering where the Geneva Bible may show the influence of the Great Bible and the Latin Vulgate would be at John 10:16.
Instead of keeping the faithful, accurate renderings of William Tyndale, who used two different English words for two different Greek words at John 10:16, the Geneva Bible followed the Great Bible in using only one English word for the two different Greek words.
One place where the KJV reveals a possible influence of High Church/Episcopal views is at John 10:16. Concerning this verse, Burlington Wale asserted: “The ecclesiastical bent of the translators of the Authorised Version shows itself here as elsewhere” (
Biblical Outlines, Vol. I, p. 218). F. B. Meyer maintained that “there is no doubt that the King James translators yielded to their ecclesiastical bias when they said, ‘There is one fold and one shepherd’” (Howard,
Sunday-Schools the World Around, p. 177). At this verse in the KJV, two different Greek words are translated "fold" which removes the clear distinction between them. Were there any important, essential, or necessary reasons why one English word was used to translate these two different Greek words?
Concerning John 10:16, J. B. Lightfoot observed: "The point of our Lord's teaching depends mainly on the distinction between the many folds and the one flock" (
The Revision, p. 73).
William Tyndale kept this difference of meaning between the two Greek words by translating the second Greek word (poimne) as "flock," as it is also translated in Jay Green's
Interlinear Greek-English New Testament and Berry's
Interlinear Greek-English New Testament. The 1535 Coverdale’s Bible and 1537 Matthew’s Bible also have “flock” in agreement with Tyndale. 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.
Luther’s 1534 German Bible distinguished between the two Greek words, using
Stalle for
aule and
Herd or
Herde for
poimne. The 1657 English translation of the authorized Dutch Bible also has “one flock” in agreement with Tyndale’s and Luther‘s.
In their tract entitled “A Corrected English Version Needed for the Heathen,“ Spencer Cone and William Wyckoff asserted that “the learned monarch’s translators rejected this rendering [Tyndale’s] of the original, and adopted one made from the Vulgate Latin, which has
ovile fold, for both Greek words“ (p. 2). A writer in
the Primitive Church Magazine asserted: “Tyndale and Coverdale translated John 10:16, ‘There shall be one
flock, and one shepherd,‘ correctly rendering the Greek; but
in the great Bible, or Cranmer’s, as it is often called, the reviser, following the vulgate Latin, put ‘one fold and one shepherd,‘ thus introducing ‘an inaccurate rendering, which continued through several revisions” (Vol. IX, June, 1852, p. 169). David Brown cited or quoted the following:
“It is worth remarking that in this Bible (referring to Great Bible) one serious mistranslation is introduced which Tyndale had avoided” … “the rendering ‘fold’ in lieu of ‘flock’ in John 10:16” (
Indestructible Book, p. 317). Henry Craik maintained that the KJV translators “ought to have restored the correct rendering given by Tyndale” at John 10:16 (
Hints, p. 42). Bullinger's
Lexicon defined
poimne as "a flock," and it noted that in the KJV at John 10:16 "it is wrongly rendered 'fold'" (p. 291). John Wesley commented: “There shall be one flock (Not one fold)“ (
Explanatory Notes, p. 244). 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).
At its entry for
fold, William Swinton as edited by Baptist T. J. Conant noted that it is “from the Latin Vulgate
ovile” and that “the true rendering is flock” (
Bible Word-Book, p. 56). William Arthur contended: “The venerated translators of our Authorized Version allowed themselves to be led by the Vulgate into a mistranslation in John 10:16” (
Contemporary Review, July, 1887, p. 52). Glenn Conjurske maintained: “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). 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).
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). In his 1538 English translation of the Latin Vulgate’s New Testament, Miles Coverdale translated the Latin as “one fold and one shepherd” at the end of this verse. Edwin Bissell maintained that “one well-known error of our own translation (John 10:16), was inherited from this version of Coverdale through the Latin” (
Historic Origin, p. 52). J. H. Murray contended that “the sense is perverted by ’one
fold’ being given for ’one
flock’” (
Help for English Readers, p. 203).
