Latin Vulgate. King James Version. Two translations. How do you relate those two? The first is Latin, the second English. They are not translated from an identical original language text. The former was the Bible of Roman Catholicism, not a denomination that teaches salvation by grace through faith. The latter was accomplished by the Church of England with support and participation from professing Christians and ultimately accepted as the received version of Scripture by the English speaking people. Although it is called the authorized version, it was not actually authorized in any official way. It was referred to as the authorized version by the people. They saw it as authorized, so it became known as authorized.
Any other relations between the two? Probably a few others that don’t come to my mind. If you didn’t know Latin, the Latin Vulgate would be, well, Latin to you. It wouldn’t mean anything. It wouldn’t edify a non-Latin speaking people. You couldn’t say “Amen” to it unless you were fluent in Latin. It shouldn’t be your Bible unless you knew Latin. Latin wasn’t an original language of Scripture. Preservation of Scripture wouldn’t be the preservation of a Latin translation of the Bible. A denomination, like Roman Catholicism, could say that this Latin translation was the authoritative text of Scripture and that, my friends, would not be true. The authoritative text of Scripture would be an original language text.
Protestants and Baptists stood for an authoritative, original language text. Controversy arose between Roman Catholic theologians and Protestant ones over this issue. Romans Catholics came down on the side of the authority of the Latin Vulgate, for purposes of tradition, because it was the translation of the Roman church, and for biblical reasons Protestants and Baptists sided with the original language text.
As you read the previous two paragraphs, did you see anything that related between the position of the Catholics and the Protestants and Baptists? If you said “no,” that is correct. Catholics based their position on tradition. Protestants and Baptists in this case based their positions on Scripture.
In light of the above information so far, then how does the Latin Vulgate relate any more to the King James Version? Is the King James Version still supported by many Protestants and Baptists because of tradition like the Latin Vulgate was because of tradition? Could be by some, but that is not the historical position. Churches support and advocate the King James Version because of the original language words from which it derived.
Enter opponents of the King James Version, critical text proponents, or multiple-versionists. They tell the world that you see nearly identical relations of Roman Catholicism and the Latin Vulgate as of King James Onlyists and the King James Version. They are saying that the King James continues to be supported for the same reason the Roman Catholics required the Latin Vulgate. They are saying that King James Onlyists (KJO) are being Roman Catholic here. They claim that both the Roman Catholics and the KJO are the same in that they both look to one Bible. So they say that one-Bible-ism is Roman Catholic.
In my lifetime, I have mainly heard this type of argumentation coming from left-leaning or liberal who don’t have a good argument to stand on. Recently, Ann Romney, wife of Mitt Romney, wrote an op-ed, published in the Wall Street Journal, praising motherhood. In the next to last paragraphs, she wrote:
But no matter where we are or what we’re doing, one hat that moms never take off is the crown of motherhood.
Michelle Goldberg, an author and Newsweek contributor, took off on her “crown of motherhood” mention on MSNBC:
I found that phrase ‘the crown of motherhood’ really kind of creepy, not just because of its, like, somewhat you know, I mean, it’s kind of usually really authoritarian societies that give out like ‘The Cross of Motherhood,’ that give awards for big families. You know, Stalin did it, Hitler did it.
Multiple version supporters attempt to smear KJO by using the same type of argument, accusing them of a type of Roman Catholicism. That is exactly what it is, a hatchet job, that they really do know is not true. This type of argumentation works like a form of propaganda that is intended to intimidate. It works, not as any kind of credible proof, but as a way to embarrass someone to move from his position. It also tosses red meat to the supporters. They get a big kick out of it, just like the feminist panel got big chuckle-chuckles out of Goldberg’s snide remark about Ann Romney.
Those who use a Latin Vulgate attack either are ignorant of the position of KJO or of history, or are just devious. Protestants would not associate themselves with Roman Catholicism as some legitimate Western Christianity. Baptists never did. They rejected the Catholic position the Vulgate for the text received by the true churches, hence the received text. They applied this same title to the English translation from the received text by calling it the “received version” of God’s Word. By doing so, they referred to the text from which the translation came.
The longtime usage of the Latin Vulgate by Roman Catholics does not compare to the long time usage of the King James Version by actual Christians. Catholics required the Latin Vulgate. Until the freedoms originating from the Protestant Reformation, there was not widespread challenge to Roman Catholicism. The acceptance of the King James Version wasn’t forced upon anyone. The people received it because they were saved, Holy Spirit indwelt people. It’s history is one of choice, not of coercion. And that choice of God’s people testifies to the authenticity of the King James Version.
The Protestants and Baptists agreed that God had preserved all His Words, every one of them and all of them. They believed that there was one Bible, the one canonized by the Holy Spirit through His churches. This is the position found in the Westminster Confession and many other major confessions of those who believe in salvation by grace through faith. The Holy Spirit would testify to His people what His Words were and they agreed that those words were found in the Hebrew Masoretic and the Greek Textus Receptus. All accurate contemporary language translations from that text would be authentic.
The view of the Protestants and Baptists came out of a pre-enlightenment way of thinking, transcendent thought, that started with God and Who He was. They took a position that came out of the exegesis of Scripture, in complete contrast to Roman Catholicism.
The modern multiple-versionists represent a post-enlightenment thinking that begins with man’s reason. It does not rely upon the beliefs of God’s churches for centuries. Instead of depending on the Holy Spirit by faith, they reject what the churches received for the forensics of scientific theoriticians. They not only abandon an old and accepted Bible, but the testimony of the Holy Spirit through His churches. That’s why you will never, ever hear the actual historical, biblical position from them, even mentioning to you the pages and pages of well-established and documented bibliology of the pre-enlightenment saints. They reject historical bibliology for the uncertainty of textual “scientists.”
So when you hear these references to the Latin Vulgate in an attack on the King James Version, understand it for what it really is. It is a desperate smear from someone with no historical or biblical basis for his position.
And to think that historical Fundamentalists and Evangelicals insists on the sovereignty of God when their Bibliology reflects man-centered reasoning. What a contradiction, what a conundrum. Now that's Roman Catholic. Spot on, as usual, Pastor Brandenburg. Thank you.
The only thing that I wanted to make known is that Catholics were the first to state that grace will redeem you. But if you think living a life of evil with a held belief will redeem you, now that is ridiculous. Of course works can lead and help and who are we to judge.
Bill,
Jesus and the Apostles first taught salvation by grace through faith alone.
You say the King James version was "not authorized in any official way." Could you expand on what you mean by that? Are you discounting the king as a non-ecclesiastical authority? I think I'm missing something.
Robert,
You find this paragraph at Wikipedia, documented with footnotes.
"The use of Authorized Version or Authorised Version, capitalised and used as a name, is found as early as 1814.[20] For some time before this descriptive phrases such as "our present, and only publicly authorised version" (1783),[21] "our authorised version" (1792),[22] and "the authorised version" (1801, uncapitalised)[23] are found. The Oxford English Dictionary records a usage in 1824.[24] In Britain, the 1611 translation is generally known as the "Authorized Version" today."
Don't feel bad Robert, I had no idea that the term Authorized Version was from the 1800's either! I just assumed it was called that because King James had authorized it's production.
Thank you for this post – still learning.
Was Scrivener trying to smear the KJV when he made the statement (I'm paraphrasing) "in some passages it adheres to no known Greek ms, but follows the Latin Vulgate exactly"?
Dave,
That sounds like a variation of the "Erasmus backtranslated parts of revelation from the Vulgate" argument.
The answer I read here satisfied me on that one a while ago: http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_re22_19.html
Incidentally, a question I've been wanting to ask you for a while. Do you believe Jesus ever said "let he that is without sin cast the first stone" in reference to a woman caught in adultery? Genuine question, and because it's off topic you can answer and I won't argue or respond.
Cheers,
Joshua
D4,
I'm going to assume that you read the post, but your comment only relates to the content in that it references the Latin Vulgate. I was talking about the Latin Vulgate as a whole and you are talking about certain words or verses contained in the Latin Vulgate. There is overlap between the Latin Vulgate and the King James. Their underlying text does have many similarities, but they are obviously not identical, and the churches didn't accept the Latin Vulgate.
Your reference to Scrivener is a red herring I'd rather not deal with. Churches believed God kept all the Words and that they were accessible to every generation. They based that upon God's promise.
The author wrote ,"The former was the Bible of Roman Catholicism, not a denomination that teaches salvation by grace through faith." The catholic church teaches …"for it is by grace that we are saved and again it is by grace that our works can bear fruit for eternal life" and "our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is a favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call…" (catechism paragraph 1697 and 1996; Cf Jn 1:12-18; 17:3; Rom. 8:14-17, 2 Pet 1:3-4). It is clear catholic christians teach salvation by grace.
Anonymous,
Thanks for dropping by. You seem to be cherry picking there. I've talked to thousands and thousands of Roman Catholics and have talking only to one who said he was saved by grace as taught by Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholics do not believe that they have full forgiveness of sins throughout all eternity, which they would if salvation were by the grace of God. Instead, it is by grace plus works, which are mutually exclusive. It is either grace or works (Rom 11:6), not both.
Canon XII at the Council of Trent reads: If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.
Canon XIV: If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.
Canon XXIV: If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.
Anonymous, these all contradict salvation by grace through faith. They teach salvation by works. And if you trust in your works, you're lost, Christ is become of none effect unto you, you are debtor to do the whole law (Galatians 5:2-4).
I get the feeling that the true word of God has been hidden from the people. What is the Codex Gigas all about? They call it the Devils Bible. Is that their way of masking the true word of God with fear? I believe they are really hiding a higher knowledge by using fear and deception to keep us from knowing ALOT of things that should be common knowledge. There are way too many versions of the word of God. Whenever I feel confused I feel that is Satan's work. There can only be one English translation per written word. Latin or otherwise. CORRUPTUS means CORRUPT…IN ENGLISH.
Thank You Kent Brandenburg for responding to my question. So you are saying that Church Canon is deceiving the masses? I see evidence of their attempt to do just that. However, true believers know that true faith in God will not allow them to succeed. Like when I take holy communion..I don't consider it the body of Christ…I consider it celebrating Christs life on earth…not a ritual sacrifice..That's why I bless myself after I receive it…to ward off their demons. I also believe the measure of a person is in their good fruits. God looks upon those
things when we are judged. But he knows who his true believers are. I believe the Catholic. Religion is not evil…but, the Church and the U.S. have been usurped by the malefactor. I will pray for their safe return to God. God Bless.
"The acceptance of the King James Version wasn't forced upon anyone."
This is a lie, the D-R catholic english bible was banned by the Masonic English Government. Anyone caught with one was executed for treason. Hundreds of D-R priests were martyred over it.
Latin translations from Latin Vulgate into English for the Catholic Church by monks-Catholic theologians is more poetic, using choice words vs the King James Version which is abbreviated and more simplistic –there is real literature in the hands of educated monks thinking and writing and explaining over years and years and that is all they did. QEI seemed to be in a hurry and gave the job to too many who did not know sufficient Greek, Aramaic and Latin to accomplish beauty through English via the Bible.
yes, daniel, you are wrong
i could not help but notice just how *protestant* this site was from the very first sentence where the downplay was trying to discredit the roman catholic church for giving the world the bible.as not to soft walk the issue like this protesting site does, THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH GAVE US THE FIRST WRITINGS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BIBLE WRITTEN BY A ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST ALONG WITH THE CANON SCRIPTURES OF MATTHEW MARK LUKE AND JOHN. centuries later, 16th century king james decided to counterfeit along with deduct books the original church authority deemed authoritative. SHE alone ( the roman catholic church) was the authority God appointed to make these decisions as to what books would be considered the authority. it just sickens me that people want to deny this and not even realize when they deny this truth, they are denying Gods truth!!!!!
Jesus and his followers was not catholic. Their teachings was not catholic either. In absolutely no way did God appoint catholic teachings to be of His will. Don't be sickened that the protestants don't want to give their souls to a church, but rather choose God as the ONLY true authority. And God's word (kjv) as the word collective truth combined by inspiration from the Holy Ghost. No human or church can ever be God or change God's will. When Jesus preached to the people, His teachings were communicated by word of mouth between people and the Holy Ghost were always there to guide the people. Not the roman catholic church. Stop worshipping the roman catholic church and start to worship God like it was meant to be. Ask God our Father through Jesus Christ to forgive your sins through the help of the Holy Ghost and be free from the evils of church worshipping. Your hatred for the protestant people can be felt through your writing. I pray that you will accept Jesus and God our Father and the Holy Ghost as your ONLY guide in your life and that God will save your soul from church worshipping and guide you in the footsteps of Jesus Christ so that you can enter heaven through the ONLY door that is Jesus Christ and not a church or a priest or Mary or anything else. Hope to see you in heaven. God bless you.
Jesus and his followers was not catholic. Their teachings was not catholic either. In absolutely no way did God appoint catholic teachings to be of His will. Don't be sickened that the protestants don't want to give their souls to a church, but rather choose God as the ONLY true authority. And God's word (kjv) as the word collective truth combined by inspiration from the Holy Ghost. No human or church can ever be God or change God's will. When Jesus preached to the people, His teachings were communicated by word of mouth between people and the Holy Ghost were always there to guide the people. Not the roman catholic church. Stop worshipping the roman catholic church and start to worship God like it was meant to be. Ask God our Father through Jesus Christ to forgive your sins through the help of the Holy Ghost and be free from the evils of church worshipping. Your hatred for the protestant people can be felt through your writing. I pray that you will accept Jesus and God our Father and the Holy Ghost as your ONLY guide in your life and that God will save your soul from church worshipping and guide you in the footsteps of Jesus Christ so that you can enter heaven through the ONLY door that is Jesus Christ and not a church or a priest or Mary or anything else. Hope to see you in heaven. God bless you.
Any other relations between the two? Probably a few others that don't come to my mind. If you didn't know Latin, the Latin Vulgate would be, well, Latin to you. It wouldn't mean anything. It wouldn't edify a non-Latin speaking people. You couldn't say "Amen" to it unless you were fluent in Latin. It shouldn't be your Bible unless you knew Latin. Latin wasn't an original language of Scripture. Preservation of Scripture wouldn't be the preservation of a Latin translation <<<
this truly is a very weak excuse for trying to downplay the latin vulgate. this translation must have been EXTREMELY important because it is from this KJV was born even though this king exalted himself to claim such authority. he relied on it to recreate his own version. of course he picked and choosed what he wanted but how could he have done anything without it. the reason it was in latin is simple, the roman catholic church is 2000 years old. the rest of the protestants only about as old as the KJV. i mean really, when it comes down to *what is truth ( as pontius pilate of rome so famously said ) all roads lead to ROME/roman catholicism. gOD ALWAYS USED THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO DO EVERYTHING HOLY AND GOOD EVEN DURING THE REFORM.
When I was saved, I knew to get a KJV Bible. So I did. Through study and guidance of the Holy Spirit I stand on it. I feel sorry for Catholics and their lack of understanding. The Book of Revelation clearly shows the head of each of the seven churches is directly under Jesus. So I attend a local, nondenominational, and autonomous church. I do not acknowledge the catholic or Protestant movements. I see no need to reform Catholicism. All I understand is that the word is sufficient and has not changed. What a pope or Luther have to say matters not. What hath God said? To think that Jesus said Peter was the rock the church is built on rather than the confession of faith is to miss the point of how a soul is saved. We are saved by believing in faith on Jesus. Believing on Peter takes the focus off of Jesus. That is never a good thing. If one reads the Bible, what is their to reform? The Bible is eternal and unchanging. The gospel is the power to save. Religion can not save you. The Bible can save. The Bible needs no reformation. It is perfect. Religion is an idol. So the real question is, opinion of man or word of god? Hath God said? or God hath said. Choose life. Choose Jesus and not a religion. Believe on his holy word.
Greetings Pastor Brandenburg, thank you for your short essay on the KJV and Latin Vulgate. I was curious however as to the nature of both, in terms of source material. I was under the impression that both had more than one source but neither had and "original" source. Is it not true that aside from the LXX and MT there are numerous portions of other corresponding sources with varying differences, (many as minor as "punctuation" for lack of a better term)? What of the more "modern" texts, whose translators like those of the KJV translation, sought to render the Greek and Hebrew into English complete with the current idioms of the day? I understand that these "modern" translators have at their disposal more access to more source material (hence the info about the differences), and in their efforts had the very same goal in mind. Perhaps this too was the effort of those who rendered the source material from the original? I am also under the impression that scholarly investigation indicates that none of the known source material ventures away from the truth, as I believe God intended, but I digress ~
Thank you Pastor. I just listened to a testimony from a former JW and one of the speakers had said that the KJV actually came out of the Latin Vulgate.
Helpful information: The Latin Vulgate (Catholic Bible) was the official Bible in western Europe from the late fourth century on …and that Catholic Bible was the first book printed on the Gutenberg press in the 1450-60's. Most people in Rome spoke Latin, even the Jews under the early Roman rule and the surrounding areas ruled by the Roman governors.
Most people could not read or write, only the highly educated. Bibles could cost hundreds of sheep skins, too expensive for the normal person. That's why they were chained down in the Churches to avoid thievery. The priests were trained to read and to teach what had been passed down to them from one generation to the next, so they read Scripture at Masses and interpreted the readings for the people.
As soon as the press was invented, the Church sought to get the Bible out to as many as possible (monks had previously been laboriously copying Scripture page after page — again, a very pains-taking process — that is how the Bible survived through the ages). It had people who translated it into many languages and had those printed out too, all 72 books of them (Martin Luther had seven books of the Old Testament removed as well as a part of Daniel).
Catholics definitely believe in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, but we also believe He calls us to live it out of love for Him( 1 Cor 13). We love others because He first loved us. We seek to change our lives by His grace because He cannot change our world if we remain hypocrites, living life as we want and not as He calls us to. Otherwise our faith is fake. Love is the only thing that endures, and since Christ is our closest neighbor, He is the one we must love in His people. That means our life must reflect who we say we are: Christians (followers of Christ).
The Wycliffe Bible was translated directly from that Latin Bible (there were no other Bibles).
Hi Sheryl,
According to John Mill in the prolegomena of his Novum testamentum græcum, as well as St. Augustine, the translation known as the Vetus Latina or "Old Italic" was a Latin translation of the Scriptures made that was much more accurate to the received Greek text than the later Vulgate was. The Old Italic translation was far more accurate, and this was discovered immediately when many of the critical compilers of the Greek text found such as the Complutensian Polyglot and the earliest T.R. of Erasmus in the beginning of the 16th century. It was found by putting the Greek in parallel columns with the Latin versions that the Vetus Latina was far more accurate to the Greek, and that the Vulgate had additions to it such as in John 3:5 where it was changed from "born" to "born again" (i.e. natus changed to renatus in Latin), and also in Matthew 6:11 where the Vulgate changed "daily bread" into "supersubstantial bread." These were alterations of the Bible proven from going back to the Greek. Placing the original Greek in parallel proved that these changes of the Vulgate were alterations made by its creators, and that the older Vetus Latina was a more accurate translation in Latin that countless churches used throughout the middle ages. In fact, the Wessex Gospels which were translated around A.D. 990 into Old English were accurate both to the Greek and Vetus Latina texts, in contradiction with the inaccurate Vulgate.
Furthermore, the Vulgate was not in a standard edition, with both Jerome's translation of the LXX Psalms and the Hebrew form of the Psalms being interchanged in various manuscripts of the middle ages. It wasn't until 1590 that a standard form of the Vulgate was created, which is known as the Sixtine Vulgate. The unfortunate thing is that the RCC immediately overruled its decision two years later when the Clementine Vulgate was created to replace it in 1592. Nowadays, RCC uses dozens of different Catholic and Protestant versions seemingly without distinction. It went back on its earlier ruling to ban all vernacular translations into languages other than Latin and now it uses the same Bibles that were once targeted for burning by the same authorities. Obviously these people are all over the place and can't get their facts straight. The simple fact is we all should be using the original accurate Scripture based on the Greek (and original Hebrew in the Old Testament) if we want to know God's real word. I think you will agree with my conclusion in light of these facts. Furthermore, Cheryl, you shouldn't be lecturing other men about matters of faith. It should be the other way around.