the Reformation Bible battle against the rcc Vulgate in the 1500s-1600s - Vulgate and Rheims influence on the TR and AV

[Steven Avery]

Vulgate - rcc

William Allen (cardinal)(1532-1594) - An Admonition to the nobility and people of England (1588) (Bilson responded)
Vulgate Rheims NT behind Bristow and Gregory Martin contra Fulke

Diego Andrada de Payva (1528-1575) - Andradius - Turretin says downplays Trent

Robert Bellarmine - (1542-1621)

Richard Bristow - (1538-1581) Rheims NT notes -

Melchior Canus (Cano) - (1509-1560)

William Damasus Lindanus - (1525-1588) - Rhemist Vulgate Primacy - mentioned by William Whitaker -

Gregory Martin (scholar) - (c. 1542-1582) contra Fulke, - source for Thomas Ward
George Mayr - (1564-1623) Georgius Marius - Hebrew

William Reynolds - Rainolds (1544-1594) Vulgate Rheims behind Bristow and Gregory Martin

Alfonso Salmeron (1515-1585) Turretin says rcc who downplays Trent, Vulgate not fully authoritative

Nicolaus Serarius (1555-1609) Turretin says rcc downplay Trent

Thomas Stapleton - (1535-1598) contra Fulke

Thomas Ward - (1652-1708) errata of protestant Bible

Andrew Willet - (1562-1621) 'Synopsis Papismi'


===================

Reformation Bible

John Jewel - (1522-1571?) - added Dec 23, 2018

Thomas Cartwright (Puritan) - (c. 1535 – 1603)

Henry Cotton (1789-1879) (divine) - KJB editions
William Crashaw - (1572–1626) Puritan 'Romish Forgeries and Falsifications,

William Fulke - (1538-1589) - Christian Hebraist

Thomas James - (c. 1573-1629) Treatise corruptions -

William Whitaker (1548-1595) - St. Johns College - Sons Alexander &Samuel


Richard Bernard -
(1624) Richard Montague - Gagg response to Kellison
Turretin
Owen
Jacobus Payva de Andrada (224) - Zeno.org - Andradius - -
Simpson, Peter - - translate Bellarmine - Current Writings

 

[BeYeSeparate]

Throughout my research I often come across the claim that the KJV was partly influenced by the DRV (NT) but refuse to believe it because of what I know about the Reformation and what I've read in the Translators to the Reader, William Fulke, and a couple other places that escape me right now. I've seen that Bryan Ross even harps on this claim. The book God's Secretaries (p.82, top of page) when discussing Bancroft's Rule 14 and the versions to be consulted says, "The list is unremarkable except for what it leaves out: no mention of the great translation made by the English Catholics in exile at Douai near Rheims. The Translators ignored this omission." (It should also be noted that p. 84 claims "the Jesuits themselves had betrayed the [Gun Powder] plotters to the Privy Council, having more allegiance to their own future prospects than to their co-religionists." Which is baffling to me, and something I've never heard before, nor do I believe for one second, since the Jesuit Garnet was actually executed for the same.)
Do you know of any information on the topic that either confirms or refutes this claim?

Thanks, and Blessings!

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi BeYeSeparate,

The Latin Bible, both Old Latin and Vulgate, which really are generally in harmony despite some mistaken two lines argumentation going back to Benjamin Wilkinson, (Bryan picked up a lot of that from me and then made it into a study ) made major contributions to the Received Text and some directly to the Authorized Version, often because Latin wording can work well in English. So Bryan is probably generally correct.

This is really a totally different question than apostate RCC doctrines. And different than the superiority of the TR over the Vulgate. I found Whitaker to be quite respectful of the Vulgate, when proclaiming the Greek TR superiority and the Hebrew over the Greek in the OT.

I'll try to place some notes and resources here.

The key book for some of the issues:

The part of Rheims in the making of the English Bible :
James George Carleton (1848-1918)
http://books.google.com/books?id=xgwXAAAAYAAJ
http://www.archive.org/details/thepartofrheimsi00careuoft

I'll try to add notes right here, some tonight.

The English Bible in the Early Modern World (2018)
Robert Armstrong, Tadhg Ó Hannracháin
https://books.google.com/books?id=bGZjDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA133

Wikipedia is similar
Douay-Rheims
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay–Rheims_Bible

 

[Steven Avery]

Notes from earlier discussions, will check these shortly

===================

Correcting Rick Norris

Alfred William Pollard (1859-1944) did not write anything for Hendrickson, whose publications began around 1990.
Plus, proper scholarship would mention that the Pollard 1911 comment is simply a secondary comment on the James George Carleton (1848-1918) 1902 book, with no indication of any additional study.

Then, the student could look at Carleton's book and note that Gregory Martin was strong in Greek and was influenced by the Greek Received Text editions and the TR-based English Bibles .

However, that would be real scholarship study, rather than quote-snippet manipulations.

===================

The learned men of the AV used all the fine scholarship available. The Geneva scholars similarly used a variety of solid sources, and the 1582 Rheims NT was available to the 1587 Geneva revision, while the earlier Geneva edition 1560, also Whittingham 1557, was available to the Rheims NT.

Textually, there is zero indication that the learned men of 1611 ever used a Latin Vulgate text over the Received Text as the source text. James Price makes a few minor attempts at that claim, but in my experience even those do not pan out. And I frequently challenge posters to check the claims first, and then post one or more if they think they are accurate. So far, zilch.

As for English translation, using solid Latin-style phrasing in any strong English Bible, be it the Geneva or the AV, is to be expected, due to the strong Latin influence on English.

The part of Rheims in the making of the English Bible (1902)
James George Carleton
http://books.google.com/books?id=xgwXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA28

"A considerable number of readings are peculiar to the Genevan, Rhemish, and Authorized Versions."

Good English writing has a strong Latin component, so if a phrase has a Latinesque vocabulary or style, that should be no surprise.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

===

Here is a simple example, from p. 86:

Matthew 4:11
Then the devil leaveth him,
and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.

For reasons unknown (possibly a different style of writing, possibly an Erasmus or Complutensian edition), the Geneva had a definite article with the angels, also the Bishops and Tyndale. Not the Wycliffe, nor the Rheims.

Then the deuill left him: and beholde, the Angels came, and ministred vnto him. (Geneva 1587)

The Greek TR (Stephanus 1550, given on the John Hurt site) does not show a definite article.

So the AV agrees with the Rheims in not having a definite article, and yet, it is a very fine translation of the Greek text.

So why should agreement with the Rheims, which is actually more literal to the Greek than the Geneva, be considered a negative?

The real issue is the accuracy, majesty and truth of the Bible text. And one element of that is faithfulness to the source texts. However, this is not even a consideration for Carleton, who makes very few references to the Complutensian, Erasmus, Stephanus or Beza.

btw, this was the first one from Carleton I checked, I have not checked others. And I took it as an example because it would be trivially easy to check and explain.

Here is the next.

Matthew 6:7
But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do:
for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

Earlier English Bibles had babbling, yet virtually all Bibles today see polylogia as many words, much speaking.

So the Rheims had simply placed in a more sensible translation. Did the learned men of the AV use the Rheims? Or did they simply take the best word and phrase, and if that was the same as the Rheims, no problemo. To avoid the proper translation because the Rheims has a good word would be a textual genetic fallacy.

One analysis fallacy at issue --> post hoc, ergo propter hoc

 

[BeYeSeparate]

Hi BeYeSeparate,

The Latin Bible, both Old Latin and Vulgate, which really are generally in harmony despite some mistaken two lines argumentation going back to Benjamin Wilkinson, (Bryan picked up a lot of that from me and then made it into a study ) made major contributions to the Received Text and some directly to the Authorized Version, often because Latin wording can work well in English. So Bryan is probably generally correct.

This is really a totally different question than apostate RCC doctrines. And different than the superiority of the TR over the Vulgate. I found Whitaker to be quite respectful of the Vulgate, when proclaiming the Greek TR superiority and the Hebrew over the Greek in the OT.

I'll try to place some notes and resources here.

The key book for some of the issues:

The part of Rheims in the making of the English Bible :
James George Carleton (1848-1918)
http://books.google.com/books?id=xgwXAAAAYAAJ
http://www.archive.org/details/thepartofrheimsi00careuoft

I'll try to add notes right here, some tonight.

The English Bible in the Early Modern World (2018)
Robert Armstrong, Tadhg Ó Hannracháin
https://books.google.com/books?id=bGZjDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA133

Wikipedia is similar
Douay-Rheims
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay–Rheims_Bible

Thank you. I think Ross throws that whole "two streams" concept out, but Wilkinson actually sites Nolan's "Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, or Received Text of the New Testament" (pp. 413-414. London: F.C. and J. Rivington, 1815) for that concept, and Nolan, there, sites Erasmus very extensively in his own note, which I will include here, starting with Wilkinson ("Our Authorized Bible Vindicated," p. 42, margin) :

"NOTE: The two great families of Greek Bibles are well illustrated in the work of that outstanding scholar, Erasmus. Before he gave to the Reformation the New Testament in Greek, he divided all Greek MSS. into two classes: those which agreed with the Received Text and those which agreed with the Vaticanus MS. Nolan, Inquiry, p. 413."

Fredrick Nolan there says: "With respect to Manuscripts, it is indisputable that he [Erasmus] was acquainted with every variety which is known to us; having distributed them into two principal classes, one of which corresponds with the Complutensian edition, the other with the Vatican manuscript.* And he has specified the positive grounds on which he received the one and rejected the other. The former was in possession of the Greek Church, the latter in that of the Latin." | *"Erasm. Nov., Test. Praef. [p. xviii.j ed. Basil. 1546. "Hie obiter illud incidit admonendum, esse Graecorum quosdam Novi Testamenti Codices ad Latinorum exemplaria emendatos. Et nos olim in hujusmodi Codicem incidimus, et talis adhuc dicitur adservari in bibliotheca Pontificia. Hoc eo visum est admonere, quod jam nunc quidam jactant se trecenta loca notasse ex Codice bibliothecae Pontificiae, in quibus ille consonat cum nostra Vulgata editione Latina, cum mea dissonat. Quod si nos urgent autoritate Vaticanae bibliothecae, Codex quem secutus est in Novo Testamento Franciscus Cardinalis quondam Toletanus, non modo fuit ejusdem bibliothecae, verum etiam a Leone X missus est, ut hoc veluti bonae fidei exemplar imitarent. Atque is pene per omnia consentit cum mea editione, dissentiens ab eo quem nunc quidam nobis objiciunt majusculis descriptum literis. Ab illo enim dissentiat oportet, si consentit cum Vulgata Latinorum editione."
{GOOGLE TRANSLATE (best I can do): "Here, by the way, it is worth noting that some of the Greek New Testament Codex's were corrected according to the Latin models. And we once came upon a Codex of this kind, and such a one is said to be still preserved in the Pontifical library. This was thought to remind us that some now boast that they have noted three hundred passages from the Codex of the Pontifical Library, in which it agrees with our Vulgate Latin edition, while mine disagrees. And if they urge us on the authority of the Vatican library, the Codex followed in the New Testament by Cardinal Francis, formerly of Toledo, was not only of the same library, but was also sent by Leo X, so that they might imitate this as a model of good faith. And he agrees in almost everything with my edition, disagreeing with that which some now object to us in writing in capital letters. For he must disagree with that, if he agrees with the Latin Vulgate edition."}
In those two instances we have exemplars of the two principal Classes into which the Greek MSS. have been divided. That the MS. of the Pope's library, which is written in the large or uncial letter, and which agrees with the Latin Vulgate, can be no other than the celebrated Vatican MS. will not admit of a doubt, after turning to n. 33. supr. p. 61. This MS. was examined for Erasmus by Paulus Bombasius, and has accordingly had some influence on his edition; vid. Erasm. Apolog. ad. Jac. Stunic. Op. Tom. IX. p. 353. a. ed. 1706. Birch. Prolegomm. in Nov. Test. p. xxii. The MS. which was sent by P. Leo X. to Cardinal Ximenes, as the exemplar of the Complutensian New Testament, is conceived to have been lost with the other MSS. used in compiling that edition. The character of the text of this MS. is not only ascertainable from the Complutensian edition, but from a MS. preserved in the Bodleian library, (Laud. 2. noted by M. Griesbach, Cod. 51.) which harmonizes with it in an extraordinary manner: vid. Mill. Prolegomm. in Nov. Test. nn. 1092. 1437. As the Vatican MS. is of the Palestine text, and the Complutensian Codex of the Byzantine; Erasmus in being acquainted with those texts seems to have possessed ample materials for revising the New Testament."

Fulke even notes that the Jesuit-Rhemist's left "the pure fountain of the original verity, to follow the crooked stream of their barbarous vulgar Latin translation" (Fulke's Defence, p. 5.)

But, I definitely need to do more study, especially on the specific Latin influence on the KJV, and am currently going through Bois's notes by Allen for myself, then I will get into those sources you shared.

Thank you, and Blessings!

 

[BeYeSeparate]

Thank you. I think Ross throws that whole "two streams" concept out, but Wilkinson actually sites Nolan's "Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, or Received Text of the New Testament" (pp. 413-414. London: F.C. and J. Rivington, 1815) for that concept, and Nolan, there, sites Erasmus very extensively in his own note, which I will include here, starting with Wilkinson ("Our Authorized Bible Vindicated," p. 42, margin) :

"NOTE: The two great families of Greek Bibles are well illustrated in the work of that outstanding scholar, Erasmus. Before he gave to the Reformation the New Testament in Greek, he divided all Greek MSS. into two classes: those which agreed with the Received Text and those which agreed with the Vaticanus MS. Nolan, Inquiry, p. 413."

Fredrick Nolan there says: "With respect to Manuscripts, it is indisputable that he [Erasmus] was acquainted with every variety which is known to us; having distributed them into two principal classes, one of which corresponds with the Complutensian edition, the other with the Vatican manuscript.* And he has specified the positive grounds on which he received the one and rejected the other. The former was in possession of the Greek Church, the latter in that of the Latin." | *"Erasm. Nov., Test. Praef. [p. xviii.j ed. Basil. 1546. "Hie obiter illud incidit admonendum, esse Graecorum quosdam Novi Testamenti Codices ad Latinorum exemplaria emendatos. Et nos olim in hujusmodi Codicem incidimus, et talis adhuc dicitur adservari in bibliotheca Pontificia. Hoc eo visum est admonere, quod jam nunc quidam jactant se trecenta loca notasse ex Codice bibliothecae Pontificiae, in quibus ille consonat cum nostra Vulgata editione Latina, cum mea dissonat. Quod si nos urgent autoritate Vaticanae bibliothecae, Codex quem secutus est in Novo Testamento Franciscus Cardinalis quondam Toletanus, non modo fuit ejusdem bibliothecae, verum etiam a Leone X missus est, ut hoc veluti bonae fidei exemplar imitarent. Atque is pene per omnia consentit cum mea editione, dissentiens ab eo quem nunc quidam nobis objiciunt majusculis descriptum literis. Ab illo enim dissentiat oportet, si consentit cum Vulgata Latinorum editione."
{GOOGLE TRANSLATE (best I can do): "Here, by the way, it is worth noting that some of the Greek New Testament Codex's were corrected according to the Latin models. And we once came upon a Codex of this kind, and such a one is said to be still preserved in the Pontifical library. This was thought to remind us that some now boast that they have noted three hundred passages from the Codex of the Pontifical Library, in which it agrees with our Vulgate Latin edition, while mine disagrees. And if they urge us on the authority of the Vatican library, the Codex followed in the New Testament by Cardinal Francis, formerly of Toledo, was not only of the same library, but was also sent by Leo X, so that they might imitate this as a model of good faith. And he agrees in almost everything with my edition, disagreeing with that which some now object to us in writing in capital letters. For he must disagree with that, if he agrees with the Latin Vulgate edition."}
In those two instances we have exemplars of the two principal Classes into which the Greek MSS. have been divided. That the MS. of the Pope's library, which is written in the large or uncial letter, and which agrees with the Latin Vulgate, can be no other than the celebrated Vatican MS. will not admit of a doubt, after turning to n. 33. supr. p. 61. This MS. was examined for Erasmus by Paulus Bombasius, and has accordingly had some influence on his edition; vid. Erasm. Apolog. ad. Jac. Stunic. Op. Tom. IX. p. 353. a. ed. 1706. Birch. Prolegomm. in Nov. Test. p. xxii. The MS. which was sent by P. Leo X. to Cardinal Ximenes, as the exemplar of the Complutensian New Testament, is conceived to have been lost with the other MSS. used in compiling that edition. The character of the text of this MS. is not only ascertainable from the Complutensian edition, but from a MS. preserved in the Bodleian library, (Laud. 2. noted by M. Griesbach, Cod. 51.) which harmonizes with it in an extraordinary manner: vid. Mill. Prolegomm. in Nov. Test. nn. 1092. 1437. As the Vatican MS. is of the Palestine text, and the Complutensian Codex of the Byzantine; Erasmus in being acquainted with those texts seems to have possessed ample materials for revising the New Testament."

Fulke even notes that the Jesuit-Rhemist's left "the pure fountain of the original verity, to follow the crooked stream of their barbarous vulgar Latin translation" (Fulke's Defence, p. 5.)

But, I definitely need to do more study, especially on the specific Latin influence on the KJV, and am currently going through Bois's notes by Allen for myself, then I will get into those sources you shared.

Thank you, and Blessings!

Sorry, just noticed the first word in Erasmus's quote there should be "Hic" not "Hie." And "[p. xviii.j" should be "[p. xviii.]"

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi BeYeSeparate,

And I placed some of my new material on the Erasmus quote here:

Tepl mythology from Benjamin Wilkinson - part of two streams - (Erasmus to Nolan to Wilkinson)

PBF Tepl mythology from Benjamin Wilkinson - part of two streams https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/tepl-mythology-from-benjamin-wilkinson-part-of-two-streams.2777/ Glenn Conjurske https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/glenn-conjurske.2553/#post-10405 Codex Teplensis ...

www.purebibleforum.com

The context (Latinization of Vaticanus and how it relates to the Complutensian or his own work) was different than what Nolan said, and then Wilkinson took it into flights of text-line fancy!

For awhile in earlier days I went through Nolan's distinctions with Old Latin manuscripts, but really he was only focused on three variants. Bryan was a little surprised when I told him that Wilkinson had mangled Nolan, but also Nolan set the stage by all sorts of Erasmus presumptions. Erasmus was concerned that some Greek manuscripts, especially Vaticanus, may have been Latinized. In fact, Vaticanus is far, far, far worse a manuscript than the Vulgate. Look for my Titan Magazine page on Vaticanus.

Note: the Nolan presumptions I really just got a clearer picture of today.