The following is Part 2 of Christopher Yetzer's analysis of the 60 Latin Vulgate readings in the KJV which were identified by Frederick Scrivener. For Part 1 click here. The article can be downloaded in pdf in the following link:
Ephesians 6:24; TR=omits ἀμήν, Vulgate=omitted, KJV=omitted
Scrivener’s Perspective: The 1611 edition of the KJV did not include the word “Amen” at the end of Ephesians, as the Vulgate did. However, every printed edition of the TR included it.
Analysis: All prior English Bibles, including both Wycliffe and the Douay-Rheims, contained the word “Amen” (it was also included in the Clementine Vulgate). While some manuscripts omit it, most include it. Notably, Amen was missing in MS98,[85] so its omission likely occurred earlier in the translation process, whether by mistake or intentional, and remained omitted through to the first printed edition. Thankfully, the word was quickly reintroduced in two separate printings in 1614 and subsequently became a standard part of the translation.
Conclusion: Whether the omission was intentional or not is unclear. It could have been a situation similar to Erasmus’ omission of 1 John 5:7, which he later reinserted. It was right to include both 1 John 5:7 and “Amen” at the end of Ephesians.
Philippians 2:21; TR=Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, Vulgate=Jesu Christi, KJV=Jesus Christ
Scrivener’s Perspective: The TR has the order “Christ Jesus,” but the KJV has “Jesus Christ” like the Vulgate.
Analysis: All previous English translations used Jesus Christ, except the Wycliffe, which used “Christ Jesus.” The Staten Vertaling Dutch, Reina and Valera Spanish, Diodati Italian and Luther German Bibles also used “Christ Jesus,” as did some Vulgate texts. It appears the translators did not aim to maintain a strict order of “Christ Jesus” or “Jesus Christ.” For example, see: Romans 3:24, 6:3, 6:11, 6:23; 1 Corinthians 1:4; Galatians 2:16, 3:14, 5:6; Ephesians 3:1; Philemon 1:1. The phrase “Jesus Christ” appears 198 times in 189 verses in the New Testament, while “Christ Jesus” appears 58 times. Every instance where the KJV differs from the TR involves “Christ Jesus” in Greek, and the previous English tradition used “Jesus Christ.” In 10 of those cases, the Vulgate does not match the KJV, but in one case, it does.
Verse | TR | 1611/PCE | Pre. English | Vulgate |
Romans 3:24 | CJ | JC/CJ | CJ | CJ |
Romans 6:3 | CJ | JC/JC | JC-Gk, CJ-Ln | CJ |
Romans 6:11 | CJ | JC/JC | JC, (CJ–DR) | CJ |
Romans 6:23 | CJ | JC/JC | JC-Gk (-Cov), CJ-Ln | CJ |
1 Corinthians 1:4 | CJ | JC/JC | JC-Gk, CJ-Ln | CJ |
Galatians 2:16 | CJ | JC/JC | JC, (CJ–DR) | CJ |
Galatians 3:14 | CJ | JC/JC | JC, (CJ–G, C, DR,W) | CJ |
Galatians 5:6 | CJ | JC/JC | JC, (CJ–C, DR) | CJ |
Ephesians 3:1 | CJ | JC/JC | JC, (CJ-W) | CJ |
Philippians 2:21 | CJ | JC/JC | JC, (CJ-W) | CJ/JC |
1 Timothy 1:2 | CJ/JC | JC/JC | JC, (CJ-G, DR) | CJ |
Philemon 1:1 | CJ | JC/JC | JC-Gk, CJ-Ln | JC/CJ |
Conclusion: The digital Bishops’ Bible used “Christ Jesus” 58 times (in forms such as “Christ Iesus,” “Christe Iesus,” “Christ Iesu,” “Christe Iesu”). The PCE also uses “Christ Jesus” 58 times. While some manuscripts show variation (e.g., P42 in Galatians 2:16 or Sinaiticus in Galatians 3:14), it seems the translators left the pre-existing standard without being overly literal. The fact that the KJV aligns with the Vulgate in only one out of 12 instances is not sufficient evidence to conclude that the KJV translators followed the Vulgate in this passage.[87]
Colossians 1:4; TR=τὴν ἀγάπην τὴν εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους, Vulgate=quam habetis, KJV=which ye have
Scrivener’s Perspective: The TR literally reads something like “the love the toward all the saints.” The Vulgate clarifies this ambiguity with “quam habetis” (“which ye have”). The KJV similarly reads, “and of the love which ye have to all the saints,” aligning with the Vulgate’s addition.
Analysis: Almost all pre-KJV English translations include a possessive adjective. Tyndale, the Great Bible and the Matthew’s Bible all reflect the same sense as the KJV with “the love which ye bear.” The Bishops’ Bible is the only exception, reading “of the love which [is] to all saintes” without a possessive adjective. Reina and Valera’s Spanish, Diodati’s Italian and the Staten Vertaling Dutch Bibles also add “ye have.” Beza’s footnote mentions that Codex Claromontanus reads “ἣν ἔχετε εἰς πάντας” (which corresponds to the Vulgate reading), and this is also the reading found in the modern critical text. Notably, by 1638, in a printing of the KJV that was worked on by two of the original translators, the added words were placed in italics - as they remain today.
Conclusion: The added words appear in some Greek manuscripts as well as the Vulgate. However, they were later italicized in the final KJV known to have been put through the press with the help of two of the KJV translators.[88] If anything, there may be some possibility that the testimony of the Greek witnesses with the Vulgate may have encouraged the reading, but it could also have been simply a contextual decision.[89]
Colossians 1:24; TR=Oς νῦν, Vulgate=Qui nunc, KJV=Who now
Scrivener’s Perspective: Both the TR and the Vulgate translate as “Who now.” The KJV is the first English translation (besides the Rheims) to render “who,” but this is because Beza’s was the first Greek edition to add it into the Greek text. Scrivener’s introduction to his list of Vulgate influences explicitly states: “In the following places the Latin Vulgate appears to have been the authority adopted in preference to Beza.”[90] However, in this case, Beza’s edition contains the same reading that Scrivener included in his TR. Beza’s footnote explains, “I restore this passage based on Codex Claromontanus and the Old Latin interpreter, so that the sense is not disjointed…”[91]
Conclusion: This appears to be an oversight by Scrivener.
1 Thessalonians 2:12; TR=τοῦ καλοῦντος, Vulgate=qui vocavit, KJV=who hath called
Scrivener’s Perspective: The TR contains the definite article “the” followed by the present participle “calls.” In general, the present participle shows an ongoing action. With a preceding definite article it can produce a noun-like phrase, as in Luke 6:29, “him that taketh away” or 1 Timothy 6:13, “who quickeneth.” Scrivener believes the KJV renders it more like the Vulgate’s perfect tense, using “who hath called.”
Analysis: All pre-KJV English Bibles had either “who hath called” or “which hath called.” MS98 shows no changes to the verse, indicating that the early translators retained the Bishops’ Bible wording.[92] As mentioned above the present participle does not necessarily mean “now.” It generally means something happening at the same time as the main verb but it can also be understood in other senses as well (e.g. the timeless action, “the living God.”). In Acts 14:13, the present participle preceded by the article “τοῦ ὄντος,” is rendered in the past tense by almost every major modern translation (“which was before their city”) as well as it is in Revelation 22:8 (“which shewed me these things”). The same thing is done in Acts 21:8 with “τοῦ ὄντος” (“which was one of the seven”). In Revelation 16:9 the phrase “τοῦ ἔχοντος” (“which hath power”) is in the present in the KJV and NET, but the ESV and the HCSB translate it in the past “who had power over these plagues.” In Matthew 21:12, “τῶν πωλούντων τὰς περιστεράς” is translated in the past in the NLV, NKJV, ESV “those who sold” and in the present in the NET, NIV and CSB “those selling.”
Stephanus’ marginal note references GA38, which contains the aorist reading καλέσαντος. The aorist is also found in Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, 104, 326, 945, 1505, 2464, as well as the Syriac and Coptic versions. Additionally, the aorist appears in the Greek text of Chrysostom’s Third Homily on 1 Thessalonians, in the edition edited by KJV translator Henry Saville.[93]
The World Biblical Commentary states: “τοῦ καλοῦντος ὑμᾶς, ‘the one who calls you.’ The act of calling is in the past (cf. ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς ὁ θεὸς … ἐν ἁγιασμῷ, 4:7; similarly 2 Thess 2:14), but God is described as ὁ καλῶν ὑμᾶς, ‘your caller,’ in a timeless sense (cf. 5:24; Gal 5:8).”[94]
Conclusion: The flexibility of participles allows for some variance in translation. If any variation in underlying text was considered by the KJV translators then the Vulgate would have only been one part of that information given the evidence mentioned above.
1 Thessalonians 2:13; TR=οὐ λόγον, Vulgate=non ut verbum, KJV=not as the word
Scrivener’s Perspective: Scrivener appears to point out that the KJV’s use of “as” corresponds to the Vulgate’s “ut,” whereas the printed TR texts do not explicitly include an adverb to express the same thought.
Analysis: All pre-KJV English Bibles included “as,” consistent with Reina and Valera’s Spanish, the 1588 Pastors and Professors of Geneva French, the Staten Vertaling Dutch, Luther’s German, Diodati’s Italian and Beza’s Latin. Diodati placed it in italics, but most versions did not. By 1629, the Cambridge printing of the KJV also italicized it.
Erasmus’ commentary: You received it not as the word of men.) Ut is not found in some Greek manuscripts, [instead is read] ου λόγον ἀνθρώπωμ, i.e., not the word of men. The manuscripts though do vary somewhat here. And it appears from the Greek scholia that ὡς is not added as an adverb in the first part but rather as: you received the word of God. This is more effective, but as the word of God.[95]
Beza’s footnote is also informative, “Not as the word of men, etc. οὐ λόγον ἀνθρώπων, etc. That is, οὐχ ὡς λόγον ἀνθρώπων, ἀλλ’ ὡς λόγον Θεοῦ [not as the word of men, but as the word of God], as the Syriac, the Vulgate, and the Greek commentators read it. Nor was there any reason for Erasmus to reject this reading on the grounds that the particle ὡς is used in reference to things that are true. On the contrary, for that very reason, he ought to have embraced it. Although this, indeed, is not relevant to the matter, for ὡς does not properly connect with λόγον [word] but with ἐδέξασθε [you received], to signify that the Thessalonians received the Apostolic teaching as was fitting for them to receive a doctrine they were persuaded was not from men (that is, not originating from men as its authors) but from God Himself, who was speaking through the Apostles, as indeed it was from God, as the matter itself proves. However, even if ὡς is not added, this construction of apposition is to be explained in the same way as we have discussed in Luke 1:41.”[96]
Chrysostom: Διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἡμεῖς εὐχαριστοῦμεν τῷ θεῷ ἀδιαλείπτως, ὅτι παραλαβόντες λόγον ἀκοῆς παρ’ ἡμῶν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἐδέξασθε οὐ λόγον ἀνθρώπων, ἀλλὰ (καθώς ἐστιν ἀληθῶς) λόγον θεοῦ, ὃς καὶ ἐνεργεῖται ἐν ὑμῖν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν.[97]
Erasmus: Διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἡμεῖς εὐχαριστοῦμεν τῷ θεῷ ἀδιαλείπτως, ὅτι παραλαβόντες λόγον ἀκοῆς παρ’ ἡμῶν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἐδέξασθε οὐ λόγον ἀνθρώπων, ἀλλὰ καθώς ἐστιν ἀληθῶς, λόγον θεοῦ, ὃς καὶ ἐνεργεῖται ἐν ὑμῖν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν.[98]
Stephanus: Διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἡμεῖς εὐχαριστοῦμεν τῷ θεῷ ἀδιαλείπτως, ὅτι παραλαβόντες λόγον ἀκοῆς παρ’ ἡμῶν, τοῦ θεοῦ, ἐδέξασθε οὐ λόγον ἀνθρώπων, ἀλλὰ (καθώς ἐστιν ἀληθῶς) λόγον θεοῦ, ὃς καὶ ἐνεργεῖται ἐν ὑμῖν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν.
Beza: Διὰ τουτο καὶ ἡμεῖς εὐχαριστοῦμεν τῷ θεῷ ἀδιαλείπτως, ὅτι παραλαβόντες λόγον ἀκοῆς παρ’ ἡμῶν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἐδέξασθε οῦχ ώς λόγον ἀνθρώπων, ἀλλὰ (καθώς ἐστιν ἀληθῶς) ώς λόγον θεοῦ, ὃς καὶ ἐνεργεῖται ἐν ὑμῖν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν.[99]
Scrivener: Διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἡμεῖς εὐχαριστοῦμεν τῷ θεῷ ἀδιαλείπτως, ὅτι παραλαβόντες λόγον ἀκοῆς παρ’ ἡμῶν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἐδέξασθε οὐ λόγον ἀνθρώπων, ἀλλὰ καθώς ἐστιν ἀληθῶς, λόγον θεοῦ, ὃς καὶ ἐνεργεῖται ἐν ὑμῖν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν.[100]
NA28: Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἡμεῖς εὐχαριστοῦμεν τῷ θεῷ ἀδιαλείπτως, ὅτι παραλαβόντες λόγον ἀκοῆς παρ’ ἡμῶν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐδέξασθε οὐ λόγον ἀνθρώπων ἀλλὰ καθώς ἐστιν ἀληθῶς λόγον θεοῦ, ὃς καὶ ἐνεργεῖται ἐν ὑμῖν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν.
Conclusion: Beza’s text includes the reading Scrivener accused the KJV translators of adopting from the Vulgate. Scrivener’s stated approach in compiling his Greek New Testament was to align the 1611 KJV wherever it matched previously printed Greek texts.[101] However, in this case, the 1611 KJV aligns with Beza, yet Scrivener did not incorporate the reading into his own text. Later editors put it in italics since it was not present in some Greek texts.
1 Thessalonians 2:16; TR=δέ, Vulgate=enim, KJV=for
Scrivener’s Perspective: The TR uses the conjunction δέ, typically translated as “but” or “and.” However, in this instance, the KJV translates it as “for,” aligning with the Vulgate.
Analysis: Every pre-KJV English Bible, as well as Reina and Valera’s Spanish translations, follows the same reading. Additionally, the KJV translators rendered δέ as “for” in several other passages, including Matthew 5:37, 13:21, Mark 16:8, Luke 12:2, 12:48 etc. Beza’s note on this usage states: “I think that δέ is used in place of γάρ, a substitution that we have already noted many times.”[102]
Conclusion: Both the KJV translators and Beza recognized that δέ could be translated as “for” without necessarily relying on the Vulgate. Their decision was based on established linguistic principles rather than direct influence from the Latin text.
1 Thessalonians 4:1; TR=καθὼς παρελάβετε, Vulgate=ut quemadmodum accepistis, KJV=that as ye have received
Scrivener’s Perspective: The TR has an adverb followed by an aorist verb, whereas the Latin has a conjunction followed by an adverb and a verb in the perfect tense. The Latin can be translated as “so that just as you have received” or “in order that just as you have received,” while the Greek might literally be translated “as you received.” Scrivener may be suggesting that the “that” in the KJV corresponds to the “ut” in the Vulgate.
Analysis: All pre-KJV English Bibles included “that.” Additionally, the 1588 Pastors and Professors of Geneva French, Reina and Valera’s Spanish and Diodati’s Italian translations all convey a similar sense to the KJV. Erasmus apparently saw little distinction between quemadmodum (just as) and ut quemadmodum (that just as), stating that “Ut, is redundant.”[103] The NA28 includes ἵνα (that), supported by manuscripts B, D, F, G, 0278, 33, 2464, as well as the Syriac Peshitta and Coptic. Given that “so” is modernly in italics in the KJV, it is possible that the “that” served to fulfill the role of ἵνα.
Conclusion: The KJV translators followed the same reading as all prior English Bibles. A more literal rendering of the TR would be somewhat awkward, “just as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God, that you should abound more.” The KJV offers a smoother translation while preserving the Greek’s meaning. Moreover, certain Greek manuscripts provide the reading which literally follows the KJV structure.
1 Timothy 1:17; TR=ἀφθάρτῳ, Vulgate=immortali, KJV=immortal
Scrivener’s Perspective: Both the TR and the Latin use adjectives. Scrivener appears to suggest that the TR should be more literally translated as “incorruptible” rather than “immortal.”
Analysis: All pre-KJV English translations rendered the word the same way as the KJV, as did the versions of Reina and Valera’s Spanish, the 1588 Pastors and Professors of Geneva French and Diodati’s Italian. Beza’s Latin expanded the term into two words, using both “incorruptible” and “immortal.” Beza’s footnote references his annotation on Romans 1:23, where he wrote: “Incorruptible, ἀφθάρτου. Erasmus, Immortal, who nevertheless admits in his Annotations that ἀφθάρτου signifies something more than ἀθάνατου. For in sacred writings especially, φθορά pertains not only to οὐσία [substance] but also to ποιότης [quality], just as the soul is said to be corrupted by vices, and someone is even said to perish who nevertheless does not cease to exist, but is wicked and most miserable.”[104] Erasmus’ footnote on Romans reads: “Incorruptible God.] ἀφθάρτου which was previously translated as ‘immortal,’ and in this context, it indeed fits better. It contrasts the immortal God with the image of a mortal, corruptible man.”[105] Returning to 1 Timothy, this is the only instance in the KJV where ἀφθάρτω is translated as “immortal.” However, Mounce defines it as “incorruptible, immortal, imperishable, undying, enduring.”[106] While the NA28 retains the same Greek reading, the NET, ESV, CSB and NIV all translate it as “immortal.”
Conclusion: There appears to be some difference of opinion on the meaning of ἀ̓́φθάρτος. The KJV is not alone in translating it as “immortal,” nor would the translators have needed to rely on the Vulgate to choose that rendering.
1 Timothy 3:15; TR= δεῖ ... ἀναστρέφεσθαι, Vulgate=oporteat te … conversari, KJV=thou oughtest to behave thyself
Scrivener’s Perspective: A literal translation of the TR might be: “that thou may know how it is necessary to behave [thyself] in the house of God.” A literal reading of the Vulgate could be: “that thou may know how it is necessary for thee to conduct thyself in the house of God.” The KJV reads: “that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God.” Scrivener may be highlighting the simple addition of “thou” before “oughtest,” or suggesting that the entire idea of this applying specifically to Timothy (“thou oughtest to behave thyself”) comes from the Vulgate. Many modern translations render this in the third person, such as: “how it is necessary to conduct oneself,” “how one ought to behave,” or “how people ought to conduct themselves.”
δεῖ - The Greek verb δεῖ is impersonal and means “needs” or “is necessary.” It is always paired with an infinitive, as seen in this verse: “it is necessary to behave.” The verb itself does not inherently indicate plurality or a specific subject. Consider these examples: Luke 2:49 the TR reads “is necessary (δεῖ) to be I,” which is translated in a wide range of translations as “I must (δεῖ) be.” Acts 27:24 the TR reads “thou is necessary (δεῖ) to stand before” this is regularly translated as “you must (δεῖ) stand before.” Luke 12:12 the TR reads “is necessary (δεῖ) to be saying” which is regularly translated as “you must (δεῖ) say.” In each of these cases, an accusative personal pronoun appears in the verse, even if not directly linked to the impersonal verb. 2 Thessalonians 3:7 offers another comparison. The TR would read: “yourselves ye know how is necessary (δεῖ) to follow us” which is fairly consistently translated as “you yourselves know how you ought (δεῖ) to follow us.” In this case the impersonal verb is applied back to the tense of the main verb. In the comparison below, δεῖ and its infinitive are in bold, the preceding perfect-tense verb is underlined and the prepositional phrase is crossed out to see more clearly the similarity.
1 Timothy 3:15 ἵνα εἰδῇς πῶς δεῖ ἐν οἴκῳ θεοῦ ἀναστρέφεσθαι
2 Thessalonians 3:7 αὐτοὶ γὰρ οἴδατε πῶς δεῖ μιμεῖσθαι ἡμᾶς
1 Timothy 3:15 that thou mayest know how [thou] oughtest to behave [thy]self in the house of God
2 Thessalonians 3:7 For yourselves know how [ye] ought to follow us
From these examples, it is clear that δεῖ and its infinitive are flexible, applying to whatever the context requires.
Analysis: All pre-KJV English Bibles included “thou” tying it back to εἰδῇς. Calvin wrote: “How thou oughtest to conduct thyself: By this mode of expression he commends the weight and dignity of the office; because pastors may be regarded as stewards, to whom God has committed the charge of governing his house. If any person has the superintendence of a large house, he labors night and day with earnest solicitude, that nothing may go wrong through his neglect, or ignorance, or carelessness. If only for men this is done, how much more should it be done for God?”[107]
Conclusion: Given the context the KJV’s translation is appropriate. Many Reformers understood and accepted this rendering, emphasizing its pastoral significance.
1 Timothy 4:15; TR=φανερὰ ᾖ ἐν πᾶσιν, Vulgate=omit ἐν: manifestus sit omnibus, KJV=omit ἐν: may appear to all
Scrivener’s Perspective: The TR might literally read, “the progress of you may be apparent in/among all.” Scrivener suggests that the KJV marginal reading “in all things” aligns more closely with the TR text, while the reading in the body of the KJV resembles the Vulgate.
Analysis: Coverdale and the Geneva Bible apply “all” to people, while the other translations apply it to all things. Diodati’s Italian, the 1588 Pastors and Professors of Geneva French and Reina and Valera’s Spanish translations also apply it to people. The Greek word πᾶσιν (“all”) is plural and may refer to either “all things” (e.g., Luke 18:22) or “all people” (e.g., Mark 6:41). The Vulgate uses omnibus, which can similarly refer to either “all people” or “all things,” as seen in its usage in Genesis 6. Beza commented, “The Vulgate and Erasmus [render it as] ‘In all. [in omnibus]’ Which we can also understand in the neuter gender, as ‘In all things’ or ‘In all ways.’”[108] The preposition ἐν normally translates as “in” but can also be rendered as “to” depending on the context. For example, the KJV translates ἐν as “to” in the following cases: Acts 24:11 “I went up to (ἐν) Jerusalem,” 1 Corinthians 7:15 “called us to (ἐν) peace,” 2 Corinthians 4:3 “it is hid to (ἐν) them,” 2 Corinthians 8:7 “in your love to (ἐν) us,” Colossians 1:23 “was preached to (ἐν) every creature” etc. In each of these examples, the Vulgate uses the Latin word “in,” but the more natural English is “to.” Many modern versions follow this approach as well. It is also important to note that the KJV marginal note does not say, “Gr[eek]. In all things.”[109] Therefore, the marginal note is not contrasting a dynamic reading in the body of the text with a more literal one in the margin. Rather, the note presents an alternative translation of the same Greek phrase. Additionally, the NA28 omits ἐν from the text, as some manuscripts lack it.
Conclusion: The KJV’s rendering is a valid English translation of the Greek. The marginal note offers another legitimate way of understanding the same phrase without implying any departure from the Greek text.
2 Timothy 1:18; TR=διηκόνησε, Vulgate=ministravit mihi, KJV=he ministered unto me
Scrivener’s Perspective: The TR does not include μοι (“unto me”) as the Latin does.
Analysis: Every pre-KJV English translation includes “unto me,” as do the Luther German, Staten Vertaling Dutch, 1588 Pastors and Professors of Geneva French and Reina and Valera’s Spanish (with the Spanish placing it in italics). Although Chrysostom’s Greek matches the TR, he clearly interpreted it as “unto me.” He wrote: “But when he was in Rome, he says, he not only did not shun intercourse with me, but ‘sought me out very diligently, and found me.’ ‘The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered [unto me] at Ephesus, you know very well’ … And observe how, besides commending Onesiphorus, he specifies his kindness, ‘he oft refreshed me’; like a wearied wrestler overcome by heat, he refreshed and strengthened him in his tribulations. And in how many things he ministered [to me] at Ephesus, you know very well. Not only at Ephesus, but here also [he refreshed me].”[110] The NKJV puts the words “to me” in italics and mentions in their footnote, “from V[ul]g[ate]., a few Gr. mss.”[111] According to the NA28 apparatus, μοι is found in manuscripts 104, 365, the Clementine Vulgate, the Old Latin, and the Syriac. The Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae Versiones Antiquae notes, “Some manuscripts [include] μοι.”[112] The NET recognizes the absence of μοι in the Greek but interprets the context as implying it, similar to the KJV. The NIV also follows this interpretation.
Conclusion: As in other instances, the KJV translators did not always italicize words when they believed the context strongly implied them. In this case, “unto me” is forcefully suggested by the context and is supported by several translations and some Greek manuscripts. Therefore, the KJV rendering is reasonable and faithful to the sense of the passage.
James 3:14; TR=τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν, Vulgate=cordibus vestris, KJV=your hearts
Scrivener’s Perspective: The KJV renders “heart” in the plural, similar to the Vulgate, while the TR has it in the singular.
Analysis: Most pre-KJV English Bibles used the plural form, except the Great Bible and the Bishops’ Bible which used the singular. Reina and Valera’s Spanish and the 1588 Pastors and Professors of Geneva French translations also used the plural, while Diodati’s Italian and the Staten Vertaling Dutch used the singular. Modern versions like the ESV, NET and NIV use the plural as well.
Conclusion: This follows a similar pattern to the argument in number 36.
1 Peter 2:13; TR=οὖν, Vulgate=omitted, KJV=omitted
Scrivener’s Perspective: The TR has a conjunction that would start the verse with “Accordingly, thereupon, then, now, certainly.”[113] However, the KJV, like the Vulgate, omits this conjunction.
Analysis: The pre-KJV English Bibles are split at this point. Tyndale, Coverdale and Matthew’s Bible follow the KJV in omitting the conjunction, while the Great Bible, Geneva Bible and the Bishops’ Bible include it as “therefore.” Reina and Valera’s Spanish, Diodati’s Italian, the Staten Vertaling Dutch and the 1588 Pastors and Professors of Geneva French translations use a word equivalent to “therefore” in their respective languages. MS98 shows that the early translators were content to follow the Bishops’ Bible reading.[114] Bois’ note discusses the term “supreme” but does not mention the opening conjunction.[115] The NA28 text omits the conjunction but notes its inclusion in some manuscripts in the apparatus. The Greek conjunction οὖν is not always translated by the KJV or by other versions (e.g., Luke 3:18, 21:7, John 8:38 , 9:25, 12:2 etc.). For instance, in John 9:12, only two pre-KJV English translations (those following the Vulgate) retained a conjunction because the Vulgate used autem, similar to the Greek οὖν.
Conclusion: This situation is similar to the arguments in numbers 18, 20, or 27.
1 John 3:20; TR=second ὅτι, Vulgate=omitted, KJV=omitted
Scrivener’s Perspective: The KJV does not explicitly translate the second Greek conjunction ὅτι in this verse, similar to the Vulgate’s handling of the text.
Analysis: All pre-KJV English Bibles omit the second ὅτι. Reina and Valera’s Spanish, the 1588 Pastors and Professors of Geneva French, Diodati’s Italian and the Staten Vertaling Dutch versions do not provide an explicit translation of ὅτι. Beza rendered it as “indeed,” explaining: “For in this way I explain what the Greek grammarians say, that ὅτι is sometimes a particle of affirmation. However, the Vulgate does not read this particle, although it is not accustomed to pass over it even when it is clearly redundant. The Syriac translates אםכ [Bemah.], how much more, so that it seems to have truly read, ὅτι [as] even more...”[116] MS98 does show “that” was inserted into the text, however by the end of translating it was removed.[117] Most commentaries do not mention this omission. Modern translations like the ESV, NKJV and CSB also do not translate ὅτι in this context. Even the highly literal EMTV omits it.
Conclusion: The KJV, like earlier English Bibles, often leaves ὅτι untranslated - especially when it introduces a dialogue or declarative statement. The translators may have understood it as a simple statement of fact, similar to Matthew 8:11: “And I say unto you, That (ὅτι) many shall….” Alternatively, they may have interpreted it as an affirmation, consistent with Beza’s explanation.
1 John 5:8; TR=οἱ τρεῖς, Vulgate=hi tres, KJV=these three
Scrivener’s Perspective: The TR could be translated literally as “the three.”
Analysis: Every pre-KJV English Bible reads “these three.” Diodati’s Italian, Reina and Valera’s Spanish, the 1588 Pastors and Professors of Geneva French and the Staten Vertaling Dutch also render it as “these three.” The Greek article is plural and can accurately be translated as “these.” Most modern versions follow this rendering, including the CSB, ESV, HCSB, NET, NKJV etc. The KJV also adds “these” in other places where the Vulgate does not, such as Luke 13:7 “these three years.”
Conclusion: Nobody would argue that translations like the CSB or NET were following the Vulgate instead of the Greek in this phrase. Neither is it necessary to assume that the KJV translators did.
2 John 3; TR=ἔσται, Vulgate=sit, KJV=be
Scrivener’s Perspective: The KJV uses a present-tense verb, similar to the Vulgate, instead of the future tense found in the TR.
Analysis: The Great Bible is the only pre-KJV English Bible which translates the verb in the future sense. Reina and Valera’s Spanish, Diodati’s Italian, the Staten Vertaling Dutch and the 1588 Pastors and Professors of Geneva French align with the KJV’s present-tense rendering. Beza noted, “May it be with you, ἔσται μεθ’ ὑμῶν. The Old Interpreter seems to have read ἔστω, which is more fitting and in Paul’s salutations, it is customary to omit it according to common usage. Thus, perhaps it was noted in the margin of a manuscript and later crept into the main text, as well as in the preceding verse, ἔστω may have been written as ἔσται. However, among the Hebrews, the future tense is often used in place of the present imperative, as is evident from the precepts of the Law. But in the Greek scholia, instead of μεθ’ ὑμῶν [“with you”], it is written μεθ’ ἡμῶν [“with us”], making it a repetition of the closing thought of the previous sentence, as if one were saying, ‘Grace (I say) will be with us,’ etc. Nevertheless, it is preferable to retain the received ancient Latin translation, even though the Greek manuscripts with great unanimity read ἔσται.”[118] Given that Beza did not change his Greek text, his intention was that it was preferable in translation to render it as the Vulgate did. KJV translator John Bois’ commented, “ἔσται [it will be], i.e. ἔστω [be]. moreover it is not a bad guess, that these words have been carried over to this place from the verse above; so that the true reading is, χάρις [grace], ἔλεος [mercy] etc. these words having been omitted ἔσται μεθ’ ὑμῶν [will be with you].”[119]
Conclusion: Both Beza and Bois questioned the literal reading of the TR here, but saw a possibility of the future tense carrying a present sense. Beza suggested a similarity in how Hebrew at times uses a future tense verb for a present imperative. For instance in Deuteronomy 6:5 “thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart” is translated with the future tense Greek verb in both the Septuagint and the New Testament. However, the context is clearly not a future promise or hope of some future obedience, but a present command. The context of that passage as well as Jesus’ words make that clear, “The first of all commandments is...” The NET translates Deuteronomy 6:5 with the present imperative “You must love the LORD your God with your whole mind” and Mark 12:30 with the same “Love the Lord your God with all your heart.” The note in Mark says, “Grk “You will love.” The future indicative is used here with imperatival force.”[120] The final KJV translation seems to have been determined by a complex set of linguistic considerations rather than a simple and blind allegiance to the Vulgate.
Revelation 13:10; TR=εἴ τις αἰχμαλωσίαν συνάγει, εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν ὑπάγει·, Vulgate=qui in captivitatem duxerit in captivitatem vadet, KJV=He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity
Scrivener’s Perspective: The Greek text is more literally “If anyone gathers captivity, into captivity he shall go.” The Vulgate has “Who into captivity leads, into captivity goes.”
Analysis: The Geneva is the only previous English translation which differs from the KJV. The Italian editions by Brucioli and Theofilo had the KJV reading, while Rustici and Diodati had “if anyone.” The Staten Vertaling Dutch, Luther’s German and the 1588 Pastors and Professors of Geneva French Bible follow more the literal Greek while the Reina and Valera Spanish reads more like the KJV. Bois’ note only reads “into captivity etc. see Mat. 26.52.”[121]
Leads or gathers?
The context is in regards to the beast and his rule. Albert Barnes explains both the general statement the verse is making and the explicit one, “The general truth is, that people will, in the course of things, be dealt with according to their character and their treatment of others; that nations characterized by war and conquests will be subject to the evils of war and conquest - or that they may expect to share the same lot which they have brought on others … The particular idea here is, that it would be a characteristic of the power here referred to that it would ‘lead others into captivity.’ This would be fulfilled if it was the characteristic of this power to invade other countries and to make their inhabitants prisoners of war; if it made slaves of other people; if it set up an unjust dominion over other people; or if it was distinguished for persecuting and imprisoning the innocent, or for depriving the nations of liberty.”[122]
According to The Complete Word Study Dictionary συνάγω is derived from “with” (“σύν”) and “lead” (“ἄγω”).[123] Together they form “with leading” or “gather together” or “assemble.” Beza mentioned in his footnote, “Perhaps the preposition εἰς is missing, unless we prefer to interpret ‘captivity’ in the Hebrew manner as referring to captives themselves being led away in groups, which is clarified by the preposition σύν (with/together).”[124] The 1568 Lexicon Græco Latinum gives “congrego [together/assemble], colligo [gather/collect], conduco [lead/conduct]” as proper translations of συνάγω.[125] The 1586 Dictionarium Decem Linguarum under the Latin word Addūco, which was described in English as “To lead or bring to,” is mentioned, “Sometimes gather, συνάγω.”[126] In the same dictionary under the Latin word Cōndūco the Greek word συνάγω is given and the English is described as “To bring or carie together, to hire,” and the Italian is “Congregare [congregate/assemble], condurre [conduct/guide/lead/escort].”[127]
If anyone or He that?
The most common way that the KJV translates εἴ τις is “if any,” but there is some variation. For example it is translated as “whosoever” in Revelation 14:11 and Revelation 20:15. The ESV and NET both translate εἴ τις as “whoever” twice in 1 Peter 4:11. The ESV also translates as “whoever” in Revelation 20:15. The sense is the same.
- If anyone does X, then Y happens.
- Whoever does X will experience Y.
- He that does X will experience Y.
Now using the verse.
- If anyone leads into captivity, into captivity he shall go.
- Whoever leads into captivity will go into captivity.
- He that leads into captivity shall go into captivity.
Conclusion: Dictionaries contemporary to the KJV translators show that συνάγω can mean “lead” and the meaning of εἴ τις is the same as the KJV reading. It seems more likely that the translators permitted the previous English translations to stand rather than specifically searching to follow the Vulgate.
Revelation 16:11; TR=second ἐκ, Vulgate=omitted, KJV=omitted
Scrivener’s Perspective: The Greek text repeats ἐκ (because of) – “because of their pains and because of their sores,” but the KJV allows the first to flow through as the Vulgate does.
Analysis: Tyndale through the Matthew’s Bible did not include the repetition although both the Bishops’ and the Geneva Bibles did. Theofilo and Brucioli’s Italian editions did not have the repetition, as well as the 1588 Pastors and Professors of Geneva French Bible and Beza’s Latin. However the Reina and Valera Spanish, Diodati’s Italian, the Staten Vertaling Dutch and Luther’s German did. Leaving out the preposition was probably done because of the concept of ellipsis where repetitive elements are sometimes omitted to create a more concise and smoother reading. The modern critical text has the same reading and yet the NKJV, CSB, ESV, LSB, NASB and NIV all leave out the second ἐκ. The NET leaves out the repeated εἴ τις in Philippians 4:8 without even noting it in a footnote. The ESV leaves out all the duplicates of εἴ τις in 2 Corinthians 11:20 and Philippians 2:1. Possibly Scrivener himself thought that the translators did the same thing in Acts 27:12 where the KJV reads “and lieth toward the Southwest, and Northwest.” Beza’s 1598 (as well as 1582 and 1589) text matches the KJV “βλέποντα κατὰ λίβα καὶ χῶρον;” however, Scrivener reinserted the second κατὰ from other Greek New Testaments like Stephanus’ 1550 (it is also in Beza’s footnote). The Vulgate in that place maintains the repetition.
Conclusion: Not duplicating a repetitive element does not require following the Vulgate. Would anyone claim that the CSB abandoned their underlying Greek text here in order to follow the King James Bible?
Revelation 17:9; TR=ὧδε, Vulgate=et hic, KJV=And here
Scrivener’s Perspective: The KJV adds “And” before “here” as the Vulgate does, but the Greek text does not have the conjunction present.
Analysis: The “And” is in every pre-KJV English Bible except the Geneva Bible. It is in Luther, but not in the standard Spanish, Italian, French or Dutch Bibles translated from Greek. At times the KJV translators added an introductory “And” to help the flow of the English. We see this in places like Mark 16:10, Luke 2:2, Acts 20:20, 2 Corinthians 12:21, Colossians 2:15, 1 Thessalonians 5:13 and 1 John 5:19. All of those are currently in italics in the PCE, but were not differentiated in the 1611. Only one of those was in the Vulgate: Colossians 2:15. There are still others which are not in italics in the PCE, but not specifically in Greek (removing some of the more obvious examples of asyndeton): Mark 12:10(V), Luke 6:16(V), 6:29(V), 8:8(N), John 19:12(V), Acts 13:3(N), 13:31(N), 15:23(N), 22:4(N) and 23:14(N). Those which were present in the Vulgate are marked by a (V) and those which were not are marked with an (N). Every one of them was present in their base text, the Bishops’ Bible, except for Mark 12:10 and most were present in all previous English translations. Sometimes modern translations also include conjunctions where they are not present in Greek. See for example the NET at Acts 13:31 and their footnote: “The relative pronoun (“who”) was replaced by the conjunction “and” and the pronoun “he” at this point to improve the English style.”[128] Also the ESV uses “and” in the same place as the KJV in Luke 6:16 and the LSB and NASB in Acts 15:23 and the NLT in Acts 22:4.
Conclusion: The KJV translators, like other translators of their time and modern translators allow for some small adjustments in translation to connect thoughts and help the flow of the context. It is not required that the “And” in Revelation 17:9 be from the Vulgate just as 12 other examples above were given which were not present in the Vulgate.
Revelation 18:23; TR=φανῇ, Vulgate=lucebit, KJV=shall shine
Scrivener’s Perspective: The Latin Lucebit is a third-person singular future active indicative verb meaning “to shine” or “to appear.” The Greek word φανῇ is a third-person singular second aorist passive subjunctive verb with a similar meaning. Typically, the aorist is translated as the simple past. However, in this case φανῇ lacks the temporal augment, indicating it is not held to a past action. For comparison, in Matthew 1:20, the third-person singular aorist εφάνη is translated as “appeared” while in 2 Corinthians 13:7 the first-person plural aorist φανῶμεν is rendered as “we should appear.” The absence of the augment affects how the verb is understood in terms of time. The passive voice generally means the subject is receiving the action. The passive form of φαίνω is typically translated as “seen” or “appeared.” For example, in Matthew 1:20, “the angel of the Lord appeared unto him...” Scrivener may have preferred a translation similar to the NABRE: “No light from a lamp will ever be seen in you again.”[129]
Analysis: The KJV translates φαίνω as “shine” in passages referring to the appearance of light, such as Matthew 24:27, John 1:5, 5:35, Philippians 2:15, 2 Peter 1:19, Revelation 1:16, 8:12 and Revelation 21:23. Of these, Philippians 2:15 is the only instance where the verb is in the passive voice. The phrase “shall shine” appears in both the Geneva Bible and the Bishops’ Bible, but the phrase is absent in earlier English translations. Although the modern critical text has no variant here, translations like the ESV, CSB, NIV, NASB, LSB and the NET continue to render φανῇ as “will shine.”
Conclusion: The Complete Word Study Dictionary says, “Strictly with the meaning to shine forth, shine. With en (G1722), in, indicating place (Revelation 18:23).”[130] This is a commonly accepted translation used by a wide variety of translations, not just the Vulgate.
Summary
Out of the 60 passages mentioned by Scrivener, 54 of them seem to be simply translational differences. Even though all of those may be rendered by the TR reading, 11 have Greek witnesses which match more literally the KJV reading (8, 9, 17, 20, 21, 29, 31, 47, 50, 51, 53). Of the 43 which do not (1-7, 10, 11, 12, 13-16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 41, 44, 46, 48, 49, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60), four are purposeful changes away from the Bishops’ Bible’s text (35, 52, 53, 58). Four of the 60 were resolved in the printing history of the KJV by the 1638 printing of which two of the original translators worked on (37, 40, 42, 45). Five of the 60 could be excused based on a good understanding of how italics were applied in 1611 (23, 34, 38, 42, 51). Two of the 60 appear to be errors Scrivener (43, 45). Two of the 60 may be purposeful changes away from the standard reading where there are Greek witnesses (9, 39).
When understanding Scrivener’s stated principles, he was generally accurate in the work he did on the Greek New Testament. However, the principles he established limited him to only using the main body of pre-1611 printed Greek texts and the 1611 printing. Had he seen Bois’ notes or considered more broadly their work, he may have opened himself to the possibility of marginal references, footnotes and the correction of errors in the first edition. Of course that would have required more time and work. Possibly some of the fault for the exaggerated list of 60 belongs to the literalness of the times. Possibly other fault belongs to Scrivener’s own meticulousness. Either way, the list in modern times seems to be misunderstood and rarely tested or thoughtfully considered. Upon close examination it was revealed that many of Scrivener’s claims rest on assumptions that do not fully account for the complexities of the KJV translators' process. While his scholarship remains valuable, his conclusions should not be accepted uncritically. A more thorough review of available sources suggests that the influence of the Vulgate has been overstated in this list, and that the translators’ decisions were often more nuanced than Scrivener’s list implies.
[1] F. H. A. Scrivener. The New Testament in the Original Greek, According to the Text Followed in the Authorized Version, Together with the Variations Adopted in the Revised Version. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1881, p. 657.
[2] F.H.A. Scrivener. A Supplement to the Authorized English Version of the New Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1845, p. 5.
[3] Matthew 2:11, 10:10, John 18:1 and Acts 27:29. F.H.A. Scrivener. A Supplement to the Authorized English Version of the New Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1845, p. 8.
[4] Matthew 2:11, 10:10, John 18:1, Acts 27:29, and 2 Peter 1:1. William Smith. A Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 2. London: Clowes and Sons, 1863, p. 524.
[5] Matthew 2:11, 9:18, 10:10, Mark 4:18, 5:38, 9:42, 15:3, Luke 3:31, 3:35, 12:56, 20:31, John 8:6, 18:1, Acts 7:16, 8:13, 27:9, Ephesians 6:24, 2 Timothy 1:18, Philemon 7, Hebrews 12:24, 2 Peter 1:1, 1 John 3:16, Jude 12, Revelation 11:4, 17:4, 18:1, 18:5, 19:18 and 21:13. F.H.A. Scrivener. The Cambridge Paragraph Bible of the Authorized English Version. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1873, p. c.
[6] Only three verses in the list of 29 did not have previously printed Greek support: John 18:1, Ephesians 6:24 and 2 Timothy 1:18.
[7] Complutensian 1514, Erasmus 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, 1535, Aldus 1518, Colinaeus 1534, Stephanus 1546, 1549, 1550, 1551, Antwerp Polyglott 1572, Beza 1560, 1565, 1582, 1589, 1598. F.H.A. Scrivener. The New Testament in the Original Greek: According to the Text Followed in the Authorized Version, Together with the Variations Adopted in the Revised Version. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1881, p. 648.
[8] F.H.A. Scrivener. The New Testament in the Original Greek: According to the Text Followed in the Authorized Version, Together with the Variations Adopted in the Revised Version. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1881, p. 655.
[9] This was in the introductory material from the CBP, but reworked and printed separately.
[10] F.H.A. Scrivener. The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1884, p. 262.
[11] For the entirety of this article (unless otherwise noted) the pre-KJV English Bible versions were consulted from e-Sword modules of the digital texts. Although this has its limitations, it is nonetheless sufficient for this project. Also Luther’s German, the Dutch Staten Vertaling, Reina’s 1569 Spanish, Valera’s 1602 Spanish and Diodati’s 1607 Italian were all consulted from e-Sword modules. Again, there are some limitations to some of these texts but given the number of printings these will suffice as a standard of the texts. The 1588 French Bible was consulted via a digital scan of a copy dated 1588. Beza’s 1598 Greek text and Latin translation were also consulted via a digital scan of that edition.
[12] F.H.A. Scrivener. The New Testament in the Original Greek: According to the Text Followed in the Authorized Version, Together with the Variations Adopted in the Revised Version. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1881, pp. 648, 656.
[13] “Idolum fuit Accaronitarum: quo nomine idolum muscæ significatur [...] Bel inquit Hieronymus,) & Beel, & Baal idem Hebreis est: nam iis vocibus indicatur idolum. Zebub autem mulcam signat: unde Beelzebub (etiam si Beelzebul Greci pronuntiant) tanquam muscæ dicatur idolum. Sed & pro dæmonarcha ponitur, hoc est, dæmonsorum principe.” Ambrogio Calepio. Dictionarium Decem Linguarum. Lyon, 1586, pp. 126-127.
[14] Spiros Zodhiates. The Complete Word Study Dictionary. Revised ed., AMG International, 1993. e-Sword module.
[15] “ut aurium aut scribarum errore factum videri possit.” Desiderius Erasmus. Novum Instrumentum Omne. Basel: Johann Froben, 1516, p. 259.
[16] “apparet ex 2. Reg. I. 2.” Theodore Beza. Novum Testamentum. Geneva: Excudebat Stephanus Curio, 1598, p. 51.
[17] At Matthew 10:25 Diodati’s 1607 Italian Bible’s footnote says, “it means, god, o lord of the fly. [significa, dio, o signor della mosca.]” Giovani Diodati. La Bibbia. Geneva: Jean de Tournes, 1607, p. 14.
[18] The NA28 text can be accessed here https://www.die-bibel.de/en/bible/NA28/MAT.1 without the apparatus.
[19] Sabatier, Petrus. Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae Versiones Antiquae. Vol. 3. Reginald Florentain, 1743, p. 1085.
[20] The Holy Bible. London: Robert Barker, 1602, p. 415.
[21] At Revelation 5:5 Bois’ notes taken in the process of translating read, “that is of the Tribe of Judah”). Ward Allen. Translating for King James. The Penguin Press, 1970, p. 99. Being that this was in both the Geneva and Bishops, my guess is that the removal of it was based on a variety of sources. Possibly one of those was the parallel passages from the other synoptic Gospels (Matthew 26:47 and Luke 22:47.
[22] See comments by Lorenzo Valla and Desiderius Erasmus at Matthew 1:20. Laurentius Valla. Laurentii Vallensis viri tam Gr[a]ec[a]e q[uam] Latin[a]e Linguae Peritissimi in Latinam Noui testamenti. 1505, pp.1-2. Desiderius Erasmus. Novum Instrumentum Omne. Basel: Johann Froben, 1516, p. 233.
[23] See Ambrogio Calepio. Dictionarium Decem Linguarum. Lyon, 1586, p. 455. or Lexicon Sive Dictionarium Graecolatinum. Geneva: Jean Crespin, 1562, p. 397.
[24] Theodore Beza. Novum Testamentum. Geneva: Excudebat Stephanus Curio, 1598, p. 235.
[25] The NA28 does read μεγάλα but the apparatus also gives a list of sources for the TR reading. Stephanus’ 1550 also included the NA28 reading in the margin.
[26] Lexicon Sive Dictionarium Graecolatinum. Geneva: Jean Crespin, 1562, p. 1124.
[27] Ambrogio Calepio. Dictionarium Decem Linguarum. Lyon, 1586, p. 629.
[28] Thanks to Jordan Kurecki for some of his advice with this material.
[29] Three of Stephanus’ manuscripts read παρατιθεμαι (Codex Bezae, minuscule 4 and minuscule 6) and 1 reads παρατιθημι (minuscule 38 and ?).
[30] “I deposit, παραθήσομαι. Or I commend: i.e., συνίστημι. But that is more proper and more suitable to the meaning of this passage. [Depono, παραθήσομαι. Vel comendo: i. συνίστημι. Sed illud magis est proprium, & huius loci sententiae accomodatius.]” Theodore Beza. Novum Testamentum. Geneva: Excudebat Stephanus Curio, 1598, p. 337.
[31] “Nam etiam Psa. 31.6, unde petita sunt haec Christi verba, legitur דיקפא [aphkid] futuro tempore. Sed preterquam quòd familiares sunt Hebraeis omnium temporum permutationes, res ipsa ostendit significationem praesentis melius convenire.” Theodore Beza. Novum Testamentum. Geneva: Excudebat Stephanus Curio, 1598, p. 337.
[32] Rustici’s 1562 Italian editions and the French Olivétan were all consulted online with scanned copies of those specific years.
[33] This was accessed through the online scan.
[34] Clement of Alexandria. The Instructor. Book 1. Chapter VII and Chapter XIV. https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/fathers/index.php/John%2010:16
[35] Cyprian’s Epistle to Magnus and Cyprian’s treatises On the Unity of the Church. https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/fathers/index.php/John%2010:16
[36] Augustine writes “flock” 6 times (mostly in the Psalms) and “fold” 8 times. https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/fathers/index.php/John%2010:16
[37] “Potius unus grex, ποίμνη” Citicorum Sacrorum. Vol. 6. Amsterdam, 1698, col. 194.
[38] “tamersi Græcis ποίμνη magis grex est quam ovile” Citicorum Sacrorum. Vol. 6. Amsterdam, 1698, col. 194.
[39] “Qua voce non grex ipse, sed ovium stabulum declaratur: quod vix unquam unicum fuit, & non modò falsò, sed etiam stultè & impudenter Romae collocatur.” Theodore Beza. Novum Testamentum. Geneva: Excudebat Stephanus Curio, 1598, p. 405.
[40] John Calvin. A Harmonie upon the Three Evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke with Commentarie of M. Iohn Calvine: Faithfullie translated out of Latine into English by E.P. Whereunto is also added a Commentarie upon the Evangelist S. Iohn, by the Same Authour. London: George Bishop, 1584, pp. 648-649.
[41] Niels Hemmingsen. A Postill. London: George Bishop, 1577, fol. 132.
[42] The Bible. London: Robert Barker. 1616, fol. 49.
[43] “intende gli eletti d’infra i Gentili, che sarebbero per l’Evangelio raccolti in una medesima Chiesa universale, con gli eletti d’infra i Iudei.” Giovani Diodati. La Bibbia. Geneva: Jean de Tournes, 1607, p. 112.
[44] “Car il n’est pas question de sçavoir si les Théologiens se servent de ce Passage en le citant selon la Vulgate pour prouver l’unité de l’Eglise. On luy avouë qu’ils le font & qu’ils ont raison de le faire, parce que ces mots unum Ovile, se peuvent réduire sans peine au mesme sens qu’unus Grex [...] Je soûtiens que M. Mall. ne sçauroit nommer un seul Théologien qui se soit servi de ce Passage pour prouver qu’il n’y a qu’une vraye Eglise, en s’attachant au mot d’Ovile ou de Bergerie, & rejettant celuy de Grex ou de Troupeau comme ostant toute la force à son argument” Antoine Arnauld. Continuation de la Nouvelle Défense. Cologne: Simon Schouten, 1680, p. 449.
[45] “ce n’a pu estre que parce que cela leur a paru fort indifférent” Antoine Arnauld. Continuation de la Nouvelle Défense. Cologne: Simon Schouten, 1680, p. 450.
[46] Arnauld also mentioned this briefly, “le mot de ποίμνη ou de ποίμνιον qui est son diminutif.” Antoine Arnauld. Continuation de la Nouvelle Défense. Cologne: Simon Schouten, 1680, p. 447.
[47] “ovile, armentum, grex ovium”.Lexicon Sive Dictionarium Graecolatinum. Geneva: Jean Crespin, 1562, p. 1465.
[48] The Latin Vulgate also used “flocks” (gregibus) in Psalm 49:9.
[49] C.S. Lewis wrote: “probably the best of the books on rhetoric. It is a systematic (not alphabetical) lexicon of the rhetorician’s terms, with clear definitions and examples. I think one could really learn the art from this book...” C.S. Lewis. English Literature in the Sixteenth Century. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1944, pp. 294-295.
[50] Henry Peacham, The Garden of Eloquence. London: R. F., 1593, p. 19.
[51] Ibid. p. 19.
[52] Ibid. pp. 20-21.
[53] Ibid. p. 21.
[54] “Qu’il est facile qu’on ait pris Ovile pour un Troupeau, par une figure tres-commune qui s’appelle continens pro contento” Antoine Arnauld. Continuation de la Nouvelle Défense. Cologne: Simon Schouten, 1680, p. 446.
[55] The Oxford English Dictionary. London: Oxford University Press, 1961, p. 385.
[56] Ibid. p. 385.
[57] “unless one takes the word Sheepfold improperly, as one often does when taking it for flock. (à moins qu’on ne prenne le mot de Bergerie improprement, comme on fait souvent en le prenant pour troupeau.)” Antoine Arnauld. Continuation de la Nouvelle Défense. Cologne: Simon Schouten, 1680, p. 447.
[60] “Sic quidem legimus in omnibus Græcis exemplaribus” Theodore Beza. Novum Testamentum. Geneva: Excudebat Stephanus Curio, 1598, p. 433.
[61] “id est Cedrorum sed manifesto errore pro τοῦ Κεδρων” Ibid.
[63] Theodore Beza. Novum Testamentum. Geneva: Excudebat Stephanus Curio, 1598, p. 458.
[64] Item declaro, creo & designo magistratum. Lexicon Sive Dictionarium Graecolatinum. Geneva: Jean Crespin, 1562, p. 243.
[65] Spiros Zodhiates. The Complete Word Study Dictionary. Revised ed., AMG International, 1993. e-Sword module.
[66] Adam Clarke. Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible. 1810-1826. e-Sword module.
[68] “Virg. Aegl. 7, Compulerantque greges Corydon & Thyrsis in unum. Et Plautus in Poen. Canes compellunt in plagas lepide lycum. Quinetiam de hominibus dici solet. Cic. De Invent. Qui dispersos homines in agris, & in tectis sylvestribus abditos, ratione quadam compulit in unum locum, & congregavit. Accipitur & pro cogo, adigo, uim adhibeo, impellor.” Ambrogio Calepio. Dictionarium Decem Linguarum. Lyon, 1586, p. 226.
[70] Spiros Zodhiates. The Complete Word Study Dictionary. Revised ed., AMG International, 1993. e-Sword module.
[71] English Majority Text Version of the Holy Bible, New Testament. 2002-2003. e-Sword module.
[72] Symeon Σιμεών. Hebrew ִׁןוֹעמש [schimhon], as it is also written in most manuscripts of 2 Peter 1:1, whereas in all other places it is rendered as Σιμών ןוֹמיש [schimon] Simon. But it seems that the Greeks say Simon instead of Simeon in a corrupted manner, because they cannot express the letter ע (ʿayin). For otherwise, I would not easily concede that those two Hebrew names designate the same name. è [Symeon Σiμεών. Hebr. ִׁןוֹעמש [schimhon,] sicut etiam pleraque exemplaria scriptum habent 2. Pet. 1.1. quum aliis omnibus locis dicatur Σiμών ןוֹמיש [schimon] Simon. Sed videtur à Graecis Simon pro Simeon corruptè dici, propterea quod literam ע non possunt exprimere. Neque enim alioqui duo illa Hebraea idem nomen declarare facilè concesserim.] Theodore Beza. Novum Testamentum. Geneva: Excudebat Stephanus Curio, 1598, p. 521.
[73] This was not in italics in 1611.
[74] English Majority Text Version of the Holy Bible, New Testament. 2002-2003. e-Sword module.
[75] F.H.A. Scrivener. The New Testament in the Original Greek: According to the Text Followed in the Authorized Version, Together with the Variations Adopted in the Revised Version. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1881, p. 656.
[76] Ambrogio Calepio. Dictionarium Decem Linguarum. Lyon, 1586, p. 1082.
[79] The Holy Bible. Tho. Buck and Roger Daniel, 1638, p. 136.
[80] Ward Allen. Translating the New Testament Epistles 1604-1611. Vanderbilt University Press, 1977, p. 121.
[81] Ward Allen. Translating for King James. The Penguin Press, 1970, p. 57.
[82] Desiderius Erasmus. In Novum Testamentum Annotationes. Basel: Johann Froben, 1535, p. 582.
[83] Theodore Beza. Novum Testamentum. Geneva: Excudebat Stephanus Curio, 1598, p. 249.
[84] Theodore Beza. Novum Testamentum. Geneva: Excudebat Henricus Stephanus, 1565, p. 366.
[85] Ward Allen. Translating the New Testament Epistles 1604-1611. Vanderbilt University Press, 1977, p. 139.
[86] The chart shows the reading in the TR (using Scrivener’s text), the reading in the 1611 KJV and the PCE, the reading in previous English versions (Gr=Greek based editions, Ln=Latin based editions, the others go by the first letter in their common names) and the reading in the Vulgate. CJ=Christ Jesus, JC=Jesus Christ. Romans 3:24 is the only one where the reading changed in the KJV over the years. 1 Timothy 1:2 is the only one where Scrivener changed Beza’s reading.
[87] James Snapp Jr. in personal communication described the amount of times that the phrase Jesus Christ is transposed in manuscripts as “oodles” and noted that one theory for why it happens so often is that scribes may have left a blank space for the nomina sacra to be completed after the initial writing.
[88] David Norton, A Textual History of the King James Bible. Cambridge Univeristy Press, 2005, p. 89.
[89] See this authors unpublished work on the italics in the 1611.
[90] F.H.A. Scrivener. The New Testament in the Original Greek: According to the Text Followed in the Authorized Version, Together with the Variations Adopted in the Revised Version. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1881, pp. 655-656.
[91] “Sic restituo hunc locum ex Claromontano codice, & Vetere Latino interprete, ne hiet sententia, & animadverti Paulum tum in hac epistola” Theodore Beza. Novum Testamentum. Geneva: Excudebat Stephanus Curio, 1598, p. 310.
[92] Ward Allen. Translating for King James. The Penguin Press, 1970, p. 99.
[93] Του ἐν άγιοις Πατρός ήμων Ιωαννου του Χρυσοστόμου. Vol. 4. Eaton, 1612, p. 172.
[94] F. F. Bruce. 1 and 2 Thessalonians, vol. 45, Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1982.
[95] “Accepistis non ut verbum ho.) Ut, non invenio in quebusdam exemplaribus graecis, ου λόγον ἀνθρώπωμ. i. Non sermonem hominum. Etiamsi hic nonihil variant exemplaria. Et apparet ex Graecox scholiis ώς adverbium non esse additum in priori parte, sed, suscepistis verbum dei. Quod efficacius est, que ut verbum dei.” Desiderius Erasmus. Novum Instrumentum Omne. Basel: Johann Froben, 1516, p. 556.
[96] “Non ut sermonem hominum, &c. οὐ λόγον ἀνθρώπων, &c. Id est, οὐχ ώς λόγον ἀνθρώπων ἀλλ’ ώς λόγον θεοῦ, ut Syrus & Vulgata ac Graeci scholiastae legunt. Neque vero causa erat cur Erasmus eam lectionem idcirco reiiceret, quod particular ώς de iis dicatur, quae vera sunt imo potius vel o beam causam debuerat eam amplecti. Quanquam hoc quidem ad rem non pertinent: nam ώς non proprie cohaeret cum λόγον, sed cum ἐδέξασθε, ut significetur, Thessalonicense Apostolicam doctrinam ita excepisse, ut par erat excipere eam doctrinam quam sibi persuasissent non esse hominum, (id est ab hominibus quasi auctoribus profectam) sed Dei ipsius, qui per os Apostolorum loqueretur, uti sane Dei erat: quod res ipsa ostendit. Verum etiamsi ώς non addas, ita erit explicanda haec species appositionis, de qua diximus Luc. 1.41.” Theodore Beza. Novum Testamentum. Geneva: Excudebat Stephanus Curio, 1598, p. 327.
[97] Του ἐν άγιοις Πατρός ήμων Ιωαννου του Χρυσοστόμου. Vol. 4. Eaton, 1612, pp. 172-173.
[98] Desiderius Erasmus. Novum Instrumentum Omne. Basel: Johann Froben, 1516, p. 111.
[99] Theodore Beza. Novum Testamentum. Geneva: Excudebat Stephanus Curio, 1598, p. 327.
[100] F.H.A. Scrivener. The New Testament in the Original Greek: According to the Text Followed in the Authorized Version, Together with the Variations Adopted in the Revised Version. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1881, p. 511.
[101] F.H.A. Scrivener. The New Testament in the Original Greek: According to the Text Followed in the Authorized Version, Together with the Variations Adopted in the Revised Version. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1881, pp. v-xi.
[102] “Deinde δέ pro γάρ positum puto quam enallegen saepe iam annotavimus.” Theodore Beza. Novum Testamentum. Geneva: Excudebat Stephanus Curio, 1598, p. 327.
[103] “Ut, redundat.” Desiderius Erasmus. Novum Instrumentum Omne. Basel: Johann Froben, 1516, p. 557.
[104] “Incorruptibilis, ἀφθάρτου. Erasmus, Immortalis, qui tamen fatetur in Annotationibus, amplius aliquid significare ἀφθάρτου quàm ἀθάνατου. Nam in sacris praesertim literis φθορά non modò ad οὐσία, sed etiam ad ποιότης,” Theodore Beza. Novum Testamentum. Geneva: Excudebat Stephanus Curio, 1598, p. 10.
[105] “Incorruptibilis dei.) ἀφθάρτου quod alias vertit immortalis, & hoc sane loco magis quadrabat. Opponit em̄ deum immortalem simulacro hominis mortalis φθαρτοῦ.” Desiderius Erasmus. Novum Instrumentum Omne. Basel: Johann Froben, 1516, p. 421.
[106] William Mounce. Mounce Concise Greek-English Dictionary. 1993. e-Sword module.
[107] John Calvin. Calvin’s Complete Commentary. e-Sword module.
[108] “Inter omnes, ἐν πᾶσιν. Vulgata & Erasmus, In omnibus, quod etiam possumus accipere neutro genere, pro Omnibus in rebus, vel omnibus modis.” Theodore Beza. Novum Testamentum. Geneva: Excudebat Stephanus Curio, 1598, p. 355.
[109] The Holy Bible. London: Robert Barker, 1611.
[110] John Chrysostom. The Complete Works of St. John Chrysostom. p. 4731. Amazon.com. Kindle Edition.
[112] Petrus Sabatier. Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae Versiones Antiquae. Vol. 3. Reginald Florentain, 1743, p. 885.
[113] Spiros Zodhiates. The Complete Word Study Dictionary. Revised ed., AMG International, 1993. e-Sword module.
[114] Ward Allen. Translating the New Testament Epistles 1604-1611. Vanderbilt University Press, 1977, p. 267.
[115] Ward Allen. Translating for King James. The Penguin Press, 1970, p. 91.
[116] “Sic enim explico quod aiunt Graeci Grammatici ὅτι esse interdum affirmationis particulam. Vulgata vero hanc particulam non legit, ut qui non soleat ne tum quidem illam praeterire quum manifeste redundant. Syrus vertit אםכ [Bemah.] quanto magis, ut omnino videatur legisse, ὅτι etiam maior &c.” Theodore Beza. Novum Testamentum. Geneva: Excudebat Stephanus Curio, 1598, p. 498.
[117] Ward Allen. Translating the New Testament Epistles 1604-1611. Vanderbilt University Press, 1977, p. 296.
[118] “Sit vobiscum, ἔσται μεθ’ ὑμῶν. Vetus interpres videtur legisse ἔστω, quod est convenientius, & in salutationibus Pauli reticeri ex commui usu consuevit, ut fortassis in albo libri annotatum postea in contextum irrepserit & in superiore vers. pro ἔστω scriptum fuerit εσται. quanuis apud Heb. Futurum pro Imperandi praesenti saepe usurpetur, ut ex praeceptis Legis apparet. In Graecis autem scholiis pro μεθ’ ὑμῶν, vobiscum, scribitur μεθ’ ἡμῶν, nobiscum, ut sit superioris extremae sententiae repetitio: ac si dicas Erit (inquam) nobiscum gratia &c. Sed praestat receptam veterem Latinam interpretationem retinere, quanuis Graeci codices summo consensu legant ἔσται.” Theodore Beza. Novum Testamentum. Geneva: Excudebat Stephanus Curio, 1598, p. 512.
[119] Ward Allen. Translating for King James. The Penguin Press, 1970, p. 97.
[120] The NET notes mention this in four passages: Matthew 22:37, Mark 12:30, Luke 1:60, Luke 10:27. New English Translation Notes. Biblical Studies Press. 1996. e-Sword module.
[121] Ward Allen. Translating for King James. The Penguin Press, 1970, p. 101.
[122] Albert Barnes. Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible. 1847-85. e-Sword module.
[123] Spiros Zodhiates. The Complete Word Study Dictionary. Revised ed., AMG International, 1993. e-Sword module.
[124] “Fortassis deest præpositio εἰς nisi malimus captivitatem Hebræorum more pro captivis ipsis turmatim abductis interpretari, quod declaratur prepositione σύν.” Theodore Beza. Novum Testamentum. Geneva: Excudebat Stephanus Curio, 1598, p. 546.
[125] Lexicon Græco Latinum. Jean Crespin, 1568.
[126] Interdum contraho, συνάγω. Ambrogio Calepio. Dictionarium Decem Linguarum. Lyon, 1586, p. 22.
[127] Ambrogio Calepio. Dictionarium Decem Linguarum. Lyon, 1586, p. 236.
[128] New English Translation Notes. Biblical Studies Press. 1996. e-Sword module.
[130] Spiros Zodhiates. The Complete Word Study Dictionary. Revised ed., AMG International, 1993. e-Sword module.
Comments