Z
ziapueblo
Guest
I know that the Doay-Rheims Bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate. How about the King James Version? When it was published in 1611 was it also translated from the Vulgate?
- Status
A
AngelRose81
Guest
From Wikipedia:
So yes and no. The majority of the KJV was not translated using the Latin Vulgate but Greek & Hebrew texts, with the exception of 2 Esdras.
See rest of link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KJV
So yes and no. The majority of the KJV was not translated using the Latin Vulgate but Greek & Hebrew texts, with the exception of 2 Esdras.
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
Thanks 
A
AngelRose81
Guest
You’re very welcome!
J
Jolly_Joe
Guest
The KJV translators did in some places follow the Vulgate over the Greek text they had. It would be proper to say the Greek and the Hebrew texts were the base text but that in difficult passages the translators consulted other translations.
It’s difficult to know exactly how much they did that they really struggled with the original languages. They were for instance supposed to follow the Bishop’s Bible as much as possible. So they likely started there, looked at the originals and if they were in good agreement, that pretty well was it.
As they worked though, the KJV did become less like the Bishop’s and more like Tyndale’s, though there isn’t a lot of differences since the Bishop’s was one of the string of translations that really relied on Tyndale’s work.
One of the best examples of translators following other translators when they don’t know is the “unicorns” in the KJV. That example goes all the way back to the Septuagint and was repeated in the Vulgate, Luther’s, Tyndale’s and so on. It was in the 1800’s when linguistic work determined that the word was a reference to an extinct species of oxen.
It’s kind of an amazing example in that it disproves the double inspiration of the Septuagint, the Vulgate, the KJV, Luther’s, the Douay-Rheims and so on, All those translations that have most often been elevated to the level of perfection in the minds of people and churches.
You will even run into people who insist that Jesus was hung on a stake and not a cross due to that word because a prophecy talks of him on the horns of that animal. When you go from the unicorn, which would be a stake to an oxen, if you ever seen an oxen skull with it’s horns you get the proper image of the cross.
What gets wierd is that people today when they read unicorn think of the mythical creature that is similar to a horse and use it to discredit the bible saying it speaks of creatures that never existed. But they weren’t thinking of that at all. Unicorn was what they called the single horned rhinocerous which was what the translators of the KJV thought was being referenced, they even gave one of their infrequent footnotes to tell the reader that.
JJ
It’s difficult to know exactly how much they did that they really struggled with the original languages. They were for instance supposed to follow the Bishop’s Bible as much as possible. So they likely started there, looked at the originals and if they were in good agreement, that pretty well was it.
As they worked though, the KJV did become less like the Bishop’s and more like Tyndale’s, though there isn’t a lot of differences since the Bishop’s was one of the string of translations that really relied on Tyndale’s work.
One of the best examples of translators following other translators when they don’t know is the “unicorns” in the KJV. That example goes all the way back to the Septuagint and was repeated in the Vulgate, Luther’s, Tyndale’s and so on. It was in the 1800’s when linguistic work determined that the word was a reference to an extinct species of oxen.
It’s kind of an amazing example in that it disproves the double inspiration of the Septuagint, the Vulgate, the KJV, Luther’s, the Douay-Rheims and so on, All those translations that have most often been elevated to the level of perfection in the minds of people and churches.
You will even run into people who insist that Jesus was hung on a stake and not a cross due to that word because a prophecy talks of him on the horns of that animal. When you go from the unicorn, which would be a stake to an oxen, if you ever seen an oxen skull with it’s horns you get the proper image of the cross.
What gets wierd is that people today when they read unicorn think of the mythical creature that is similar to a horse and use it to discredit the bible saying it speaks of creatures that never existed. But they weren’t thinking of that at all. Unicorn was what they called the single horned rhinocerous which was what the translators of the KJV thought was being referenced, they even gave one of their infrequent footnotes to tell the reader that.
JJ
B
BDewey
Guest
The short answer is that the KJV was “officially” a revision of the Bishop’s Bible (then the Authorized Version of the Church of England). However, in regards to other texts, it closely consulted Beza’s Greek NT and both the Geneva Bible and the Rheims NT of 1582. In fact, the Rheims NT had a considerable influence upon the vocabulary and grammar of the KJV…something not advertised much! In fact, if you’re TRULY bored, I’d suggest consulting Jame Carleton’s book The Part of Rheims in the Making of the English Bible. Although old (published in 1902), it’s research is solid and irrefutable. Also, it’s public domain now so no copyright laws prevent its free distribution. Download it in PDF here. It’s free & legal. And to all the KJV-only folks who lurk here, I’d suggest you read it, too.
Although the Douay-Rheims Bible was published in 1609/10, it had been completed by 1582, but only the NT was published because the English Catholics in exile didn’t have the money to publish the entire Bible, so only the NT was published since it was vital to their Counter-Reformation efforts.
- Status