by Christopher Yetzer
Missionary to Italy
This is Part 1 of this article. For Part 2 click here. The entire article can be downloaded in pdf in the following link:
This article critically examines the 60 passages identified by F.H.A. Scrivener as instances where “the Latin Vulgate appears to have been the authority adopted [by the KJV translators] in preference to Beza.”[1] It seeks to assess the motivations behind the KJV translators’ choices and evaluate the accuracy of Scrivener’s claims.
Background
In the introduction to F.H.A. Scrivener’s 1845 work, A Supplement to the Authorised English Version of the New Testament, he examined various readings in the King James Version (KJV), organizing his objectives into three categories:
I. Errors of Criticism, arising from false readings of the Greek text.
II. Errors of Interpretation, which originate from mistaking the sense of the original Greek.
III. Errors of Expression, where the language of the English translation itself is ambiguous, ungrammatical, or obscure.[2]
Regarding the first category, Scrivener began to discuss the Greek sources used by the KJV translators. On pages 7 and 8, he provided a short list of verses where the KJV translators followed Beza over Stephanus and afterwards a list of places where they followed Stephanus over Beza. However, in his work he must have also encountered readings that aligned with neither, leading to four verses being noted in which, “our version adopts a reading found neither in Stephens nor Beza; in the last two cases on the authority of the Latin Vulgate.”[3]
Nearly two decades later, in 1863, Brook Foss Westcott included Scrivener’s findings in a footnote in A Dictionary of the Bible by William Smith, expanding the list with additional passages where the KJV followed neither Beza nor Stephanus.[4]
Around a decade later, when Scrivener published the Cambridge Paragraph Bible (CPB), he included in the introductory material an appendix of 131 passages subtitled The Greek Text adopted by the Translators of the Authorized Version of the New Testament. This appendix synthesized his previous research, Westcott’s additions, and further material. It contained over two pages of passages where the KJV followed Beza against Stephanus, about half a page where it followed Stephanus against Beza, and 29 examples of “Passages in which the text of the Authorized Version differs from those of Stephens (1550) and of Beza (1598).”[5] These were not just places where the KJV matched the Vulgate but also places where other printed Greek texts matched readings in the KJV.[6] This was where Scrivener’s original list along with the one example added by Westcott and others were presented.
Another decade later, Scrivener published The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version. Unlike his earlier projects, which focused on identifying the KJV’s primary Greek bases, this work aimed to reconstruct all possible Greek readings underlying the KJV. Starting with Beza’s 1598 text, Scrivener examined 17 other printed Greek editions of the Textus Receptus (TR), inserting a variant reading into Beza’s text whenever he found evidence that it matched better the reading in the 1611 printing of the KJV.[7]
Since his purpose was different, his methods were different and consequently the appendix was different. Instead of listing all variations between Beza and Stephanus, it documented only where Scrivener’s reconstructed text diverged from Beza’s 1598 edition, citing the supporting Greek sources for each variant. However, he still had a list of places where he could not find support in the previously printed Greek texts, leading Scrivener to append the list to the end of the appendix with the note:
“The text of Beza 1598 has been left unchanged when the variation from it made in the Authorized Version is not countenanced by any earlier edition of the Greek. In the following places the Latin Vulgate appears to have been the authority adopted in preference to Beza. The present list is probably quite incomplete, and a few cases seem precarious.”[8]
This list of 60 suspected Vulgate-influenced readings was subsequently reprinted in various volumes, typically with the same introduction and content. However, in 1884, Scrivener included the list with a different introduction in his The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Editions.[9] There, the list appeared at the end of a reworked Appendix E from the CPB, with the variant introduction:
“It may be useful to subjoin a list, probably quite an incomplete one, of places in which the Translators of 1611 have apparently followed the Latin Vulgate, mostly after the example of Tyndale, sometimes of Versions later than his, especially of the Rhemish of 1582...”[10]
Scrivener’s final list of 60 passages contained one verse from his original 1845 work (John 18:1). One reading was first mentioned in A Dictionary of the Bible (Acts 7:26) and two were first given in the CPB (Ephesians 6:24 and 2 Timothy 1:18).
Examination of Scrivener’s 60
#1-7
Matthew (10:25), 12:24, 12:27, Mark 3:22, Luke 11:15, 18, 19: TR=Βεελζεβοὺλ; Vulgate=Beelzebub; KJV=Beelzebub
Scrivener’s Perspective: The printed Greek texts almost consistently read Βεελζεβοὺλ (Beelzeboul), but the KJV translated it with a ‘b’ at the end, as it was translated in the Latin Vulgate.
Analysis: Luther consistently used Beelzebub, as did all previous English translations. The 1588 Pastors and Professors of Geneva French Bible used Beelzebul in Matthew 10:25 but Beelzebub in the other six instances. Reina’s Spanish Bible consistently rendered the name as Beelzebul, and Valera largely followed this pattern, except in Mark 3:22, where he used Beelzebub. Diodati’s Italian Bible consistently used Beelzebub. Beza’s Latin text had Beelzebulem, while his Greek text read Βεελζεβοὺλ.[11] However, Scrivener later altered Beza’s reading in Matthew 10:25 to Βεελζεβοὺβ based on the Complutensian Polyglot.[12]
The 1586 Dictionarium Decem Linguarum, under the word BEELZEBUB, provides the Greek equivalent βεελσεβοὺλ and notes: “The idol of the Ekronites, by which name the idol of the fly is signified. Jerome says that Bel, Beel, and Baal are the same for the Hebrews, for by these terms an idol is indicated. Zebub, however, signifies a fly, hence Beelzebub (even if the Greeks pronounce it Beelzebul) is understood as the idol of the fly. But it is also used to mean the prince of demons, that is, the chief of the demons.’”[13] The Complete Word Study Dictionary states that Βεελζεβοὺλ is “transliterated from the Hebr. Ba‛al Zebūb.”[14] In the Old Testament, בוּבז לעב appears four times and is typically translated with a ‘b’ ending in most Bible translations.
Erasmus retained the manuscript reading in his printed Greek text but questioned why the Greeks had changed the final ‘b’ to an ‘l.’ He speculated that this shift resulted either from Greek grammatical conventions or - since there is little similarity between the letters - “possibly an error made by the ears of the scribes.”[15] He also referenced Jerome who asserted that the names of Bel, Beel and Baal all referred to the same idol. Beza, commenting on Matthew 10:25, noted that one manuscript read Βεελζεβοὺβ “as is found in 2 Kings 1:2.”[16]
Conclusion: The evidence does not indicate that the KJV translators blindly or solely relied on the Latin Vulgate. Rather, it is more likely that they considered the arguments of Beza, Erasmus and their lexical sources. They may have also understood Jerome’s reasoning and agreed that the name referred to the Old Testament “god of the flies.”[17]
Mark 13:37: TR=ἃ, Vulgate=quod, KJV=what
Scrivener’s Perspective: The Greek relative pronoun ἃ is plural, whereas the Latin quod is singular.
Version Analysis: Luther translated it as “was” (what). Tyndale, the Great Bible, Matthew’s Bible and the Bishops’ Bible rendered it “that.” Among pre-KJV English Bibles, only the Geneva Bible explicitly reflected the plural sense with “those things that.” The 1588 Pastors and Professors of Geneva French Bible followed the Geneva Bible’s plural reading. Coverdale translated the word exactly as the KJV has it. The 1569 Reina and 1602 Valera also used a plural rendering, aligning with the Geneva Bible. In contrast, Diodati rendered it “that which” in a singular sense. Beza’s Latin reflected a plural meaning, while the Nestle-Aland 28th edition (NA28) adopts the singular ὃ.[18]
The word “what” is not inherently singular or plural but derives its number from context. For example in Revelation 7:13 “what” is plural: “What are these which are arrayed in white robes?” In Revelation 3:3 “what” is singular: “thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.” The KJV also translates ‘ἃ’ as “what” elsewhere. In Acts 11:9 (“A ὁ θεὸς ἐκαθάρισε”), the KJV renders it “What God hath cleansed.” Notably, the Vulgate here uses the plural quae.
Conclusion: There is no strong reason to assume that this reading in the KJV originated from the Vulgate. English allows for both singular and plural interpretations. Either way there are also some Greek manuscripts which support the singular ὃ.
Mark 14:43: TR=ὢν; Latin=omit ὢν, KJV=omit ὢν.
Scrivener’s Perspective: The printed TR editions included the verb ὢν, which could be expected to be rendered as in the Geneva Bible: “Judas that was one of the twelve.” However, the KJV omits the verb, as does the Vulgate.
Analysis: Luther, Tyndale, Coverdale and Matthew’s Bible all omit the verb, while the Great Bible, Geneva and Bishops’ Bible include it. The Reina and Valera Spanish Bibles also retain the verb, whereas Diodati omits it. The Old Latin text and the NA28 critical text similarly do not include ὢν.[19] The only indication from the Bishops’ Bible is the marginal cross references: “Mat. 26.47. luke 22.47. iohn 18.3.”[20] Both of the synoptic passages in the TR have the identical context and wording except that neither of them have the added verb.
Conclusion: The KJV does not always translate ὢν. For example, it was omitted in Acts 18:24 and Revelation 5:5.[21] Being that this was in both the Geneva and Bishops’, the omission in Mark 14:43 likely resulted from the translators’ use of a variety of textual sources including Tyndale and Diodati’s 1607 Italian Bible. There are also a variety of Greek manuscripts which do not include the verb as the synoptic passages do not. If the KJV translators had merely followed the Vulgate, it might be expected that they would have included “Iscariot” as the Vulgate does.
Luke 1:35: TR=γεννώμενον, Latin=nascetur, KJV=shall be born.
Scrivener’s Perspective: Scrivener’s only note on this passage is “nascetur.” He may have been considering either the tense of the verb or the translation. The Latin nascetur is future, whereas the Greek γεννώμενον is a present passive participle. In some contexts, γεννάω is rendered “conceive,” as it is in Matthew 1:20, a reading defended by various writers.[22] Beza, in his footnote at Luke 1:35, wrote about the possibility that the Greek verb carried the meaning of “conceive” rather than “to be born,” as reflected in his revision of the Vulgate’s nascetur to gignetur in his Latin text.
Analysis: Nearly all pre-KJV Bibles across various European languages translate the verb as “born” and render it in the future tense. While there is no textual variant for the verb in the NA28, most modern Bibles follow the same pattern. Even though Beza changed the Latin word, he still retained the future tense. A present participle does not always indicate something happening now but can describe an action in progress within a given context. For example: “Tomorrow I will go to the store, driving my car.” Here, “driving” functions as a present participle, yet the action occurs in the future. In Luke 1:35, the main verbs are in the future tense, which pushes the entire context forward in time, including the participle. Therefore, Scrivener may not have been referring to the tense.
Regarding definition, lexical sources from the 1500s generally defined γεννάω as “begat” or “engender.”.[23] The Complete Word Study Dictionary defines it as: “To beget as spoken of men; to bear as spoken of women; pass., to be begotten or be born.” In Luke 1:35, γεννάω is passive. Hebrews 11:23 provides a clear example of where γεννάω carries the sense of birth, “By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents.”
Conclusion: Both Reformation-era and modern translations consistently inrerpret this passage with a future meaning, choosing “birth” rather than “conception.” As a valid translation, it does not require dependence alone or at all on the Vulgate.
Luke 1:49: TR=μεγαλεῖα, Vulgate=magna, KJV=great things
Scrivener’s Perspective: Scrivener’s only comment is “μεγαλα magna.” Mεγαλεῖα is often translated into Latin more literally as magnalia or magnificè and in English as “majestic,” “wondrous,” or “marvelous.” In contrast, μεγάλα is more often translated as magna in Latin and “great” in English. Beza’s Latin text deviates from the Vulgate toward Scrivener’s perspective: “magnificè mecum egit” (He has dealt magnificently with me).[24] Beza’s footnote suggests that Mary may have been quoting Psalm 98:1. The KJV translates that passage as “marvelous things.” In Acts 2:11, the only other instance of μεγαλεῖα in the TR, the KJV translates it as “wonderful works.” Scrivener appears to be indicating that he felt the KJV translators followed μεγάλα[25] (as in the Vulgate) rather than μεγαλεῖα from the TR.
Analysis: In Luke 1:49, all English Bibles up to and including the KJV translate the phrase as “great things.” Similarly, Diodati’s Italian, Valera’s Spanish, Luther’s German, the Dutch Staten Vertaling and the 1588 Pastors and Professors of Geneva French Bible render it as “great things” in their respective languages.
The lexical sources available to the KJV translators indicate that “great things” is not an erroneous translation but fits within the semantic range of μεγαλεῖα. The Lexicon sive Dictionarium Graecolatinum describes the TR adjective μεγαλεῖος as “magnus, venerandus...”[26] Magnus means “great” (as in Carolus Magnus - Charles the Great). While Ambrogio Calepino’s Dictionarium Decem Linguarum did not give the exact Greek word it did provide magnificus which comes from magnus (great) + ficus (to do), forming an adjective comparable to the adverb Beza used in Luke 1:49. Magnificus was defined in English as “Magnifick, that doth great actes.”[27] Magnificentia is the noun form, which the same dictionary describes as “The doing or achieving of great things.” Modern dictionary’s describe μεγαλεῖα the same way. The Word Study Dictionary provides, “great, indicating great works or miracles. Great, glorious, wonderful. As a subst. with the pl. art. tá megaleía, great things, wonderful works, contemplated as the outworking of the greatness of God’s power and glory.” The Scripture4all interlinear translates the TR reading as “greatnesses” or “great-things.”
Conclusion: There is no compelling reason to assume that the KJV is dependent on the Vulgate here. Most Reformation-era translations render the phrase in the same way and lexical sources from various eras affirm the translation. The phrase “great things” is well-supported both linguistically and historically.
Luke 20:35: TR=καταξιωθέντες, Vulgate=habebuntur, KJV=shall be accounted worthy
Scrivener’s Perspective: The Greek participle καταξιωθέντες is aorist passive. The EMTV provides a reasonable translation of the expected Greek construction: “But those who have been counted worthy.” The Vulgate, however, renders it with a future verb, as does the KJV.
Analysis: All English Bibles up to the KJV translate this passage in a manner similar to the KJV. Diodati’s Italian, the 1588 Pastor and Professors of Geneva French and the 1638 Dutch Staten Vertaling all use the future tense, while Valera’s Spanish translation renders it in the past.
The aorist participle generally refers to an action that has been completed, but the context determines when it was completed. To illustrate this, consider the idea of driving to the store, where “driving” represents the aorist participle, and the main verb shifts in tense:
- Past: Having driven to the store, she realized she had forgotten her wallet.
- Present: Having driven to the store, she looks for a parking spot.
- Future: After she will have driven to the store, she will pick up the groceries.
In each case, “driven” describes a completed action, but its timing is dependent on the main verb(s). The aorist participle indicates that something is completed or will be completed prior to the time established by the main verb or the broader context. While the main verb in Luke 20:35 is aorist, the context clearly refers to a future event. This is further supported by the presence of present-tense verbs - “neither marry, nor are given in marriage” - which suggest that Jesus was speaking as though He had transported His audience into the future. The same pattern occurs in Mark 12:25, where an aorist participle is followed by present-tense verbs. In both cases, the KJV translators appear to be clarifying the future context by rendering the opening participle in the future tense.[28]
Conclusion: The passage refers to a future event, describing those who, at that time, will be worthy. This does not imply that they were never worthy in the past but rather that they became worthy at some point before that future moment. The KJV’s rendering does not necessarily limit the worthiness to a future acquisition, only to a future possession of it. It seems likely that the KJV translators chose this option to provide English readers with a clearer sense of the passage’s future context.
#13-16
Luke 23:34, Matthew 27:35, Mark 15:24, John 19:24: TR=κλῆρον, Vulgate=sortes/sortem, KJV=lots.
Scrivener’s Perspective: Scrivener appears to suggest that the Vulgate’s use of the plural sortes in Luke 23:34 may have influenced the KJV translators’ choice to use “lots” in all 4 verses he listed.
Analysis: The Greek of the TR consistently uses the singular κλῆρον (“lot”) when it is followed by the verb “to cast” (ἔβαλον). The KJV, in turn, consistently translates this phrase as “cast lots.” By the 1600s, the standard English expression for this action was “cast lots,” while the singular “lot” typically referred to the individual one that was drawn or chosen. The Vulgate, however, is not consistent. It uses the plural sortes in Luke 23:34 and for λάχωμεν in John 19:24 but uses the singular sortem in the other instances listed by Scrivener. Notably, the KJV also translates Psalm 22:18 as “cast lots,” even though the Hebrew, LXX and Latin all use the singular. This suggests that with this phrase the KJV translators were guided more by established English usage than by any specific textual variation.
Conclusion: It is likely that the KJV translators followed conventional English phrasing, using “cast lots” as the standard term for the action rather than adhering to the singular or plural forms of a specific text. Given that the Vulgate itself alternates between singular and plural in these passages (two of the six use the plural), it is unlikely that the KJV was merely copying the Latin.
Luke 23:46: TR=παραθήσομαι, Vulgate=commendo, KJV=I commend
Scrivener’s perspective: The TR contains the future-tense verb παραθήσομαι, but Scrivener wrote that the KJV’s rendering aligns more closely with the present tense παρατίθεμαι.
Analysis: All Reformation-era translations which were consulted in this study render this verb in the present tense. The 1638 Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible includes a footnote acknowledging the future tense as an alternative. In the margin of Stephanus’ 1550 Greek New Testament, four manuscripts are cited as containing the present tense.[29] Beza altered the Vulgate’s commendo to depono[30] and noted in his footnote that Erasmus’ Latin translation used the future tense: “for even in Psalms 31:6 from which these words of Christ are derived, is read דיקפא in the future tense. Otherwise it is true that in all times the Jews were familiar with the permutations; the matter itself shows that the meaning of the present tense fits better.”[31] Beza then cited the two variant readings mentioned in Stephanus’ margin. The NA28 adopts the present-tense verb.
Conclusion: Beza’s preference for the present tense was not based on the Vulgate, and there is no reason to assume that the KJV translators depended on it either.
John 7:9: TR=δέ, Vulgate=omitted, KJV=omitted
Scrivener’s perspective: The KJV omits the Greek conjunction δέ, as does the Latin Vulgate.
Analysis: Scrivener accurately points out that the KJV does not translate the Greek conjunction δέ. The word “When” is understood as part of the verb, as seen in similar passages like Mark 6:49 and 12:14, where the KJV clearly places δέ before the “when” of the participle. Most translations do not render every Greek conjunction, and none of the English versions prior to the KJV translated δέ in John 7:9.
The same conjunction appears in the NA28, yet modern translations like the NET and LSB do not render it. The NET maintains a structure similar to the KJV and, in its e-Sword module with Strong’s numbers, does not assign a number to “When” - though it also does not provide a footnote explaining the omission. By contrast, Reformation-era translations in other languages do include δέ in John 7:9. The 1588 Pastors and Professors of Geneva French Bible, 1607 Italian Diodati and 1602 Valera Spanish all translate it as “and” in their respective languages.
Conclusion: The KJV also omits δέ in Matthew 2:3, 2:9, 2:10, 2:14, 3:1, 5:31, 6:27, 8:1, 8:10, 8:16, 9:16 etc. Its omission does not necessarily indicate dependence on the Vulgate, as omitting or including δέ is a common translational choice.
John 10:16: TR=ποίμνη, Vulgate=ovile, KJV=fold.
Scrivener’s perspective: The TR uses the word for “flock,” but the KJV translates it as “fold,” just as the Vulgate did.
Analysis: The English Bible tradition varies in its rendering of John 10:16. Tyndale, Coverdale and Matthew’s Bible all use “flock,” whereas the Bishops’ and Great Bible opt for “fold.” The Geneva Bible, possibly aiming to retain some of the Greek wordplay in “ποίμνη, εἷς ποιμήν,” translates it as “one sheepfolde, and one shepheard.” Meanwhile, most foreign-language translations preferred “flock” in their languages. However, Reina and Valera’s Spanish versions adopted “fold” (corral), as did both editions of Rustici’s 1562 Italian Bible and earlier editions of the Protestant French Bible, such as Olivétan’s.[32] Nevertheless, the Old Latin[33] and citations by Clement of Alexandria,[34] Cyprian,[35] and Augustine[36] offer some support for an older Latin reading of “flock.”
Scholars of the Greek text also varied on their opinions. Lorenzo Valla supported the translation “flock,” writing: “Rather one flock.”[37] Erasmus concurred: “for the Greeks, ποίμνη is more a flock than a fold...”[38] Yet, despite this, he consistently retained “unum ovile” (“one fold”) in his own Latin edition. Theodore Beza, conversely, defended the Vulgate’s choice in his footnote: “By which word not the flock (grex) itself, but the sheepfold (ovium stabulum) is intended; which was scarcely ever one, and not only falsely but also foolishly and shamelessly placed in Rome.”[39] However, in his Latin text, Beza opted for “flock.”
Regarding the theological implications of John 10:16, John Calvin wrote, “That is, that all the children of God may grow into one body: as we doe all confesse one catholike faith, and one body must of necessitie have one head onely. There is one God (saith Paule) one faith, one baptisme. Therefore we must be one as we are called into one hope, Eph. 4.4. And although this flock doth seeme to be divided into divers fouldes, yet are the faithul which are dispearsed throughout the whole world enclosed with common hedges: because the same worde is preached unto all, the same sacraments are in use, there is the same forms of prayer, and those thinges which are requisite in the profession of faith. Marke the meanes wherby the flocke of is gathered togeather: namely, when there is one shepheard of all, and his voyce is hearde. The meaning of which wordes is this, when as the Church is subject to Christ alone, is subject to government, and taketh heed unto his doctrine, then is the estate thereof well ordered. If the Papistes can shew us any such thing amongst them, let them inioy that title of the Churche whereof they boast so muche, but and if Christe bee silent there, his Maiestie be troden under foote, his holy ordinances be mocked: what other thing is their unity, but a divelish conspiracie, which is worse and more execrable then all disorder and flattering abroade? Therefore let us remember that we must alwayes begin at the head. For which cause, when as the Prophetes doe describe the restoring of the church, they doe alway ioyne David the king with god as if they should say, that there is neither any church, where God doth not reigne, neither any kingdome of God, where the honour of a shepheard is not ascribed unto Christ.”[40] Similarly, Lutheran theologian Niels Hemmingsen wrote, “The thirde place is of Christes sheepe, and of their marke, and that there is but one sheepfold and one shepherd. The sheepe of Christ are al they that beare Christ, and like sheepe doo follow him in true simplicitie, innocencie, meekenesse, and obedience. Neither are there any other markes to know Christes sheepe by, than devotion toward God, charitie towards our neighbour, purenesse of conversation, and a certaine holy carefulness & forwardnesse in our vocation. And wheras he sayth he hath other sheepe, that must be brought in to the same fold, he meaneth that there is one holy Catholike church of the Jewes and Gentiles together. And therewithall he expresseth the manner howe the sheepe shall be brought together, when he sayth: And they shall heare my voyce. The preaching of the Gospell therefore, and the beleeving of the Gospell when it is preached, causeth us to be gathered into Christes sheepfold.”[41] The Geneva Bible footnote summarizes their theological perspective: “The certaine marke of the Catholike Church throughout all the world, which hath one head, that is, Christ, the onley keeper, and onely shepheard of it.”[42] Diodati’s 1607 Italian Bible echoes the same sentiment: “intends the elect from among the Gentiles, that should be by means of the Gospel gathered into one and the same universal church, with the elect from among the Jews.”[43]
The KJV provides a marginal reference linking John 10:16 to Ezekiel 37:22:
Ezekiel 37:19-24, “Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD ; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand […] And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all [...] And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.”
From the Catholic side of the debate, the French Jansenist Antoine Arnauld downplayed the significance of the translational variant, arguing that either reading supports the same theological conclusion: “For the question is not whether theologians use this passage, citing it according to the Vulgate, to prove the unity of the Church. It is admitted to him that they do so and that they are right to do so, because the words unum Ovile (‘one fold’) can easily be understood in the same sense as unus Grex (‘one flock’) [...] I maintain that Mr. Mall cannot name a single theologian who has used this passage to prove that there is only one true Church by insisting on the word Ovile (fold -Latin) or Bergerie (fold -French) and rejecting Grex (flock -Latin) or Troupeau (flock -French), as if the latter would take away all the force of his argument.”[44] He further theorized why earlier French Protestants had retained “fold” in their translations: “It could only have been because it seemed to them quite indifferent.”[45]
In linguistics, diminutives frequently retain the core meaning of the original word while adding nuance of smallness or affection. In English, diminutives are normally formed by adding suffixes like -let (booklet), -ie (doggie), or -y (dolly), or by using words like “little” or “mini.” In Greek the diminutive is often made with the suffix -ιον. For example, the diminutive of βίβλος (book) is βιβλαρίδιον, which in Revelation 10:2 is translated in the KJV as “little book.” Because diminutives usually maintain a sense of the original, a “dolly” is still understood as a doll and a “booklet” is still a type of book. Similarly, the diminutive of the Greek word for flock (ποίμνη) is ποίμνιον,[46] which is used in Luke 12:32 alongside the adjective for “small.” Together the KJV renders them as “little flock,” which reflects the affectionate tone of the diminutive. It is akin to how a young girl might call her toy “my little dolly.” The Greek diminutive of flock is defined in the 1562 Lexicon Sive Dictionarium Graecolatinum as “A sheepfold, herd, flock of sheep.”[47] It is also the word used in the LXX to render the Hebrew term for “enclosure,” “pen” or “fold” (ךיתאלכממ) in Psalm 50:9 (LXX 49:9).[48]
Another effect of speech is continens pro contento (the container for the thing contained). In Henry Peacham’s highly praised[49] treatise on rhetoric entitled The Garden of Eloquence, he explains the use of metonymy as “a forme of speech, whereby the Orator putteth one thing for another, which by nature are nigh knit together.”[50] He then lists four ways in which this occurs. “1. The cause for the effect. 2. The effect for the cause. 3. The subject for the Adjunct. 4. The Adjunct for the subject.”[51] Peacham goes on to describe each case. Under number three, he gives four categories, “1. The possessor for the thing possessed [...] 2. Time put for the things done in time [...] 3. Place put for the things it containeth [...] 4. The container for the thing contained.”[52] Number four is the one of interest here. In modern English it appears in certain phrases such as: “The White House issued a statement” or “He drank the whole bottle.” In these cases the “White House” and “bottle” are supplied for the thing contained inside, i.e. the people or the liquid. Peacham gives two examples from Scripture: “Is not the cup of blessing, which we blesse the communion of the blood of Christ? In this example the Apostle putteth the cup for the contents of the cup. Another: There shall be one fold, and one shepherd, that is, one company or flocke.”[53] The previously mentioned Antoine Arnauld also explains the variant here with continens pro contento: “How easy it is to have taken Ovile (fold) for a Troupeau (Flock), by a very common figure [of speech] called continens pro contento.”[54]
Conclusion: The use of “fold” in John 10:16 was defended by Reformation-era Lutherans and Calvinists. While the original interpretation may have been influenced by the Latin Vulgate, it was not the sole factor in the KJV translators’ decision. Perhaps Arnauld’s sentiments regarding the French versions would also apply to the KJV. Possibly they retained “fold” from the Bishops’ Bible because they discerned no substantive difference. The Oxford English Dictionary lists two senses that may apply to the context of John 10:16: 1. b. “fig., esp. in a spiritual sense.” and 1. c. “The sheep contained in a fold.”[55] For 1.c. it gives 3 examples, “1669 Worlidge Syst. Agric. (1681) 219 To run the Fold over it, and well settle it. 1697 Dryden Virg. Past. VII 73 The bleating Fold. 1742 Collins Eclog. III 14 Till late at silent eve she penn’d the fold.”[56] Even in the 17th century, as Arnauld noted, the terms “sheepfold” and “flock” were sometimes used interchangeably.[57] Samuel Johnson’s 1755 Dictionary also lists “The flock of sheep.” as a definition.[58] In fact many modern dictionaries still give a definition of “fold” as “sheep.”[59]
John 12:26; TR=καὶ, Vulgate=omitted, KJV=omitted
Scrivener’s perspective: The TR includes the conjunction καὶ after ἔσται, but this is not reflected in the Latin Vulgate or the KJV.
Analysis: Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew’s Bible and the Geneva Bible all included the “and,” whereas the Great Bible and Bishop’s Bible did not. Most standard Reformation-era foreign language Bibles also retained the conjunction, though the Valera Spanish Bible omitted it. The current NA28 text also excludes it.
Conclusion: As noted in #18, Greek conjunctions are not always translated. For instance, see the KJV’s rendering of Matthew 8:8, 8:9, 11:4 etc. The omission of καὶ in the KJV does not necessarily indicate dependence on the Vulgate, as such conjunctions are at times left untranslated based on contextual, linguistic or historic considerations.
John 18:1; TR=τοῦ χειμάρρου τῶν Κέδρων, Vulgate=torrentem Cedron, KJV=the brook Cedron
Scrivener’s perspective: Scrivener’s note reads, “τοῦ Κέδρων Cedron”, with the singular article aligning with the NA28. A more literal translation of the TR might be “of the brook of the Cedrons”
Analysis: All the major pre-KJV Bible translations retained “Cedron” in singular. While the Italian, French and Spanish versions included the preposition “of,” they likewise kept the singular form. Beza remarked that his reading was “how we read it in all the Greek manuscripts”[60] but also acknowledged that “it is clearly an error instead of τοῦ Κέδρων,”[61] as it appears in Hebrew. Although Beza frequently referenced the Vulgate in his notes, he did not mention it in this passage. Instead, he cited the opinions of Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples (Stapulensis) and Johann Reuchlin (Capnio). According to William H. Ingram’s The Ligatures of Early Printed Greek the difference in ligatures between τοῦ and τῶν is almost indistinguishable.[62]
Conclusion: The KJV followed the tradition of earlier English Bibles, likely influenced by the Hebrew text. This may also explain why Jerome translated it in the singular as well.
Acts 2:22; TR=ἀποδεδειγμένον, Vulgate=approbatum, KJV=approved
Scrivener’s perspective: The participle in the TR is in the perfect tense, indicating an action completed in the past with ongoing consequences - similar to Jesus’ declaration “It is finished.” The KJV ‘s translation, “approved,” aligns well with this nuance. Scrivener’s concern appears to be with the choice of wording rather than the tense. In other passages, the KJV translates the same Greek root as “showing” or “prove.” A more explicitly literal rendering, such as the EMTV’s “attested,” may have better reflected Scrivener’s preference.
Analysis: All pre-KJV English Bibles rendered this passage the same way as the KJV, as did Diodati’s Italian, Valera’s Spanish and the 1588 Pastors and Professors of Geneva French. Beza’s Latin translation also used the same Vulgate word, but in his footnotes he provided some clarification: “That is, in such a way that there can be no ambiguity about it, and that it is established by those works which God performed through Him as necessary proofs, as understood in the same way as in [Acts] 25:7 below.”[63] In the 1562 Lexicon sive Dictionarium printed in Geneva, part of the definition says, “I declare, appoint, and designate a magistrate.”[64] The first definition in The Complete Word Study Dictionary fits perfectly the KJV use in Acts 2:22:
“To designate, constitute, appoint in relation to any office or station. In 1Corinthians 4:9, “That God hath set forth [trans. aor. act. apédeixen, set forth, meaning attested, proven] us the apostles last.” The apostles are described as éschatoi (G2078), last in the social scale, but God proved them and because they proved acceptable, He set them forth. In 2Thessalonians 2:4, “showing himself that he is God” means designating himself that he is God.”[65]
Conclusion: The KJV translators recognized a sense of ἀποδείκνυμι that aligns with The Complete Word Study Dictionary, pre-KJV English translations and other major versions, including the Vulgate. Their choice of “approved” reflects the historical and lexical context well.
Acts 4:32; TR=καρδία, Vulgate=cor unum, KJV=one heart
Scrivener’s perspective: An interlinear translation of the TR might read, “the heart and the soul one.”
Analysis: All pre-KJV Protestant translations checked included this same idea. Other than the omission of articles, the NA28 text remains unchanged, and modern translations - though including “one” only once - still apply the adjective to both “heart” and “soul” (e.g., NIV, ESV and NET). The KJV translators occasionally duplicated Greek words when they applied to multiple nouns. For instance in Matthew 19:19 the pronoun σου appears only once in Greek, but the KJV copies it twice, “thy father and thy mother.” In Matthew 3:11 the preposition ἐν is duplicated in the KJV to apply to both “the Holy Ghost” and “fire,” “with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.”
Conclusion: The Greek adjective clearly applies to both nouns, making Scrivener’s mention of this point seem unnecessary.
Acts 6:3; TR=καταστήσομεν, Vulgate=constituamus, KJV=we may appoint
Scrivener’s perspective: Scrivener notes that the Greek verb in the TR is in the future indicative, whereas the Vulgate uses the present subjunctive. A more literal rendering of the TR might be “whom we will appoint.”
Analysis: All pre-KJV Bibles used “may” in their translation, as did Reina and Valera’s Spanish, Diodati’s Italian, the 1588 Pastors and Professors of Geneva French and Luther’s German Bibles. Adam Clarke observed: “Instead of καταστησωμεν, we may appoint, καταστησομεν, we shall appoint, is the reading of ABCDE, and several others. It makes, however, very little difference in the sense.”[66] Even though the NA28 retains the future tense, modern translations such as the NET, NASB and LSB still render it in the present subjunctive “whom we may put in charge.”[67] Stephanus’ 1550 edition notes in the margin that two of his manuscripts (miniscule 5 and one yet unidentified) read καταστησωμεν.
Conclusion: The KJV follows a long tradition of translation that persists even in modern versions. While the Vulgate is part of this tradition, it is not the sole influence - there are also Greek manuscript witnesses which support this sense.
Acts 7:26 TR=συνήλασεν, Vulgate=reconciliabat, KJV=would have set
Scrivener’s perspective: The verb in the TR is third-person singular aorist, while the Latin Vulgate uses the imperfect past tense, both in the indicative mood. Rather than highlighting a difference in tense, Scrivener may have been focusing on the choice of translation. He might have preferred a rendering such as “exhorted them to peace.”
Analysis: Diodati’s Italian translation uses “incite them to peace,” but every pre-KJV English Bible used the same phrase to translate the Greek. A literal interlinear rendering might be “compels them into peace.” However, the Greek verb συνήλασεν has been interpreted in various ways. The 1586 Dictionarium Decem Linguarum defines the related Greek verb συνελαύνειν under the Latin Compellātiō as “To drive and gather together in one flock.” It further provides, “Virgil, Eclogue 7: ‘And Corydon and Thyrsis had driven their flocks together into one.’ And Plautus in Poenulus: ‘The dogs cleverly drive the wolf into the nets.’ Moreover, it is also commonly said of men. Cicero, De Inventione: ‘He, by a certain reasoning, gathered together and brought into one place men who had been scattered in the fields and hidden in woodland shelters.’ It is also understood as ‘to force,’ ‘to drive,’ ‘to apply force,’ ‘to impel.’”[68] The Scripture4All interlinear translates it as “he-intercedES-with,”[69] while The Complete Word Study Dictionary explains that it is derived from “together, together with” and “to drive. To drive together into one place, of wild beasts or persons.”[70] The EMTV translates it as “(tried to) reconcile” which aligns with the NET’s footnote.
Conclusion: To “drive together” can imply compulsion, but it can also mean to bring into unity or reconciliation, as reflected in the Vulgate and other translations. The KJV’s phrase “set them at one” beautifully captures this meaning, conveying the idea of restoring divided things into a peaceful unity.
Acts 7:44; TR= ὁ, Vulgate=omitted, KJV=omitted
Scrivener’s Perspective: the phrase ὁ λαλῶν could be more strictly translated as the EMTV does - “the One speaking”[71] - rather than the KJV’s rendering, which omits “the One.”
Analysis: Coverdale appears to be the only pre-KJV English Bible to translate the Greek article in this context, rendering it as: “like as he appointed them, whan he spake unto Moses.” Both the 1588 Pastors and Professors of Geneva French and Diodati’s Italian versions included the article, while Valera’s Spanish did not. Except for some exceptions, the KJV generally translates the definite article, as seen in Acts 1:11 or 15:17. However, they do not always do so. For instance, in Acts 27:14, the KJV omits it, whereas Coverdale, once again, is the only pre-KJV English Bible to render it explicitly as “which is called.” The Vulgate similarly translates it using the Latin pronoun qui in that passage.
Conclusion: While the KJV typically translates the Greek definite article, they occasionally chose not to - regardless of whether the Vulgate included it or not.
Acts 10:20; TR=ἀλλὰ, Vulgate= itaque, KJV=therefore
Scrivener’s Perspective: The Greek word ἀλλὰ is generally translated as “but” or “yet.” In this verse, the KJV renders it as “therefore,” which aligns more closely with the Vulgate’s itaque.
Analysis: The 1588 Pastors and Professors of Geneva French Bible, Diodati’s Italian Bible and all pre-KJV English Bibles used “therefore.” Interestingly, the KJV also renders the same Greek word as “therefore” in 2 Corinthians 8:7 and Ephesians 5:24, whereas in both cases, the Vulgate used sed (“but”).
Conclusion: As seen in previous examples, the KJV translators exercised discretion in determining when to maintain the standard rendering and when to adjust it. They also translated the same Greek conjunction in the same way in other passages, even when the Vulgate differed.
Acts 13:1; TR=Συμεὼν, Vulgate=Simon/Symeon, KJV=Simeon
Scrivener’s Perspective: Scrivener’s note reads, “xiii. I Simeon (Σιμών Er. : Simon Vulg. xv. 14).” The KJV renders the name as “Simeon” in Acts 13:1, 15:14 and Revelation 7:7. Beza’s 1598 text has Συμεὼν (Symeon) in both Acts passages and in Revelation 7:7. Erasmus’s first edition had Σiμὼν (Simon) in Acts 13:1 and Συμεὼν (Symeon) in Acts 15:14 (his Latin text reads Simon in both). The Clementine Vulgate has Simon in both Acts passages, but Jerome’s appears to have had Simeon in both.
Acts 13:1: Simon=Erasmus, Clem. Vulgate; Symeon=Beza; Simeon=KJV, Jerome
Acts 15:14: Simon=Clem. Vulgate; Symeon=Beza, Erasmus; Simeon=KJV, Jerome
Scrivener seems to be highlighting the difference between “Symeon” and “Simeon,” that is the translating of the Greek upsilon as an ‘i’ in English.
Analysis: A comparison of translations for both Acts passages:
Acts 13:1: Simon=Tyndale, Coverdale, Great, Luther, Reina & Valera Spanish; Symon=Matthew, Simeon=Geneva, Bishops, 1588 Pastors and Professors of Geneva French, Diodati Italian
Acts 15:14: Simon=Coverdale, Matthew, Luther, Spanish; Simeon=Tyndale, Great, Geneva, Bishops , 1588 Pastors and Professors of Geneva French, Diodati Italian
By the late 1500s, Geneva-based editions, along with the Bishops’ Bible, consistently used “Simeon” in both passages. Beza’s footnote at Acts 15:14 argues that “Simeon” (Σiμεὼν) and “Simon” (Σiμὼν) are simply variations of the same name derived from Hebrew.[72] Both the NA28 and Hodges & Farstad’s Majority Text adopt the reading Συμεὼν (Symeon) in both passages, yet almost all broadly accepted English translations use “i” instead of “y.”
Conclusion: While the KJV does not consistently translate upsilon as “i” or “y,” it is common for translations to adopt a standard spelling of proper names. For example, Πέτρος (Petros) in Greek is closer to the Vulgate’s Petrus, yet even the Douay-Rheims and all pre-KJV English translations render it as “Peter,” following the standard English form. If Scrivener believed that the use of “i” in “Simeon” was a deliberate attempt to follow a specific text, then it is worth noting that Erasmus used an iota in Acts 13:1. By that logic, Scrivener should have carried that over into his own Greek text to reflect the KJV translators’ decision. Normally Scrivener was quite pedantic in his work.
Acts 13:15; TR=εἰ ἔστι, Vulgate=si quis, KJV= if ye have any
Scrivener’s Perspective: A literal rendering of the TR might be more like “if there is a word in/by you.” The Latin Vulgate could be translated as “if there is any word among you.” The TR does not explicitly include the word “any,” which appears in the Vulgate. Scrivener seems to be highlighting that the KJV wording aligns more closely with the Vulgate, which follows the NA28 text “εἰ τίς.”
Analysis: Every pre-KJV English translation, along with major translations in other languages, follows the same basic rendering. The Dutch version is one of the few to place “any” in italics, indicating it as an interpretative addition.
Conclusion: The KJV occasionally introduces indefinite quantifiers where the Greek lacks a definite article, even when τίς is absent. For instance, Matthew 10:5 is an example where the noun “city” does not have a definite article and it is translated in the KJV with “any”[73] even though the Vulgate did not have quis. Mark 11:16 has the same situation with “any vessel.” Another example would be Acts 19:2 “whether there be any Holy Ghost…” or Mark 12:21 “any seed” etc.
Acts 17:30; TR=τῆς ἀγνοίας, Vulgate=hujus ignorantiæ, KJV=this ignorance
Scrivener’s Perspective: Scrivener appears to be noting that the Vulgate incudes the pronoun hujus (this), whereas the TR uses only the definite article τῆς (the).
Analysis: Tyndale, the Great Bible, Matthew’s Bible, the Geneva and the Bishops’ Bible all rendered it as “this,” just as the KJV does. While the 1588 Pastors and Professors of Geneva French and Diodati’s Italian did not use “this,” Valera’s Spanish version did.
Conclusion: The KJV translators had no issue rendering a Greek definite article as an English demonstrative pronoun. For example, in Matthew 15:12, the KJV translates “τον λογον” as “this saying.” There is no reason to assume they relied on the Vulgate for this choice, as it was already a well-established translation practice.
Acts 19:20; TR=Kυρίου, Vulgate=Dei, KJV=God
Scrivener’s Perspective: The TR reads “Lord” but the KJV translates it as “God,” aligning with the Latin Vulgate.
Analysis: Among the pre-KJV English Bibles, Coverdale is the only one to render this as “Lord” instead of “God.” The standard Reformation French and Spanish Bibles also used “Lord” in their respective languages, while Diodati’s 1607 Italian followed the “God” reading. The reading “God” is reportedly found in early versions such as the Sahidic, Syriac and Old Latin, as well as in Greek manuscripts D, E, 88 and 436.
Some have argued that κύριος can fall within the semantic range of “God.” The Greek Old Testament (LXX)sometimes translates the Hebrew word ֱִֹםיהלא (Elohim) as κύριος (Lord), as seen in 1 Kings 12:22 and 1 Chronicles 17:3. Additionally, the Hebrew word ְהוָהי (Jehovah), often translated as LORD in the KJV, is occasionally rendered as God in the Greek New Testament (e.g., compare Matthew 4:4 with Deuteronomy 8:3). The words “God” and “Lord” are used in similar phrases like: “angel of the Lord” (Acts 12:23) and “angel of God” (Acts 27:23); “Spirit of the Lord” (Acts 8:39) and “Spirit of God” (Romans 8:9); “word of the Lord” (Acts 8:25) and “the word of God” (Acts 18:11).
Conclusion: The KJV translators may have been influenced by the Vulgate’s reading, by earlier English translations or by available Greek manuscripts - or possibly all three.
Acts 23:15; TR=ἀκριβέστερον τὰ περὶ, Vulgate=omits τὰ, KJV=omits τὰ
Scrivener’s Perspective: The TR includes the plural article τὰ, but the KJV does not translate it - just as the Vulgate omits it. A similar construction is found in Luke 22:37, where the KJV translates “τὰ περὶ ἐμοῦ” as “the things concerning me,” and in Luke 24:27, where “τὰ περὶ ἑαυτοῦ” is translated as “the things concerning himself.” In Acts 23:15, the EMTV translates the phrase as “more accurately the things concerning him.”[74]
Analysis: Scrivener’s note on this passage is slightly unclear: “xxiii. 15 aliquid certius (om. τὰ). So Tynd.”[75] Scrivener states that τὰ has been omitted, yet he also notes that aliquid has been translated. This suggests that τὰ was not entirely omitted, but rather rendered as “something.” Looking at the texts clarifies this:
TR: ὡς μέλλοντας διαγινώσκειν ἀκριβέστερον τὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ
KJV: as though ye would enquire something more perfectly concerning him
ὡς = as though | μέλλοντας = ye would | διαγινώσκειν = enquire | ἀκριβέστερον = more perfectly | τὰ = something | περὶ = concerning | αὐτοῦ = him
From TR to KJV:
enquire more perfectly [about] the things concerning him
enquire more perfectly [about] some things concerning him
enquire [about] some things more perfectly concerning him
enquire something more perfectly concerning him
Vulgate:
tamquam aliquid certius cognituri de eo
tamquam = as though | aliquid = something | certius = more certainly | cognituri = to know | de = concerning | eo = him
If “something” in the KJV and aliquid in the Vulgate correspond to τά from the TR, then neither version has truly omitted it. Instead, they have rendered it in a way that differs slightly from the standard translation in other contexts. While the KJV often translates τά as “the things,” the context in Acts 23:15 is slightly more nuanced. Interestingly, modern versions such as the ESV, CSB, NASB, NET and NKJV all translate τὰ as “the things” in Luke 24:27, but in Acts 23:15, none of them supply a specific word for τὰ at all demonstrating the complexity of this reading.
All pre-KJV English Bibles (except for Coverdale) translated τὰ in Acts 23:15 as “something,” as did Reina and Valera’s Spanish editions. The 1588 Pastors and Professors of Geneva French Bible translated it as “some things” with two words in the plural. Some Reformation-era translations (e.g. Staten Vertaling Dutch and Diodati’s Italian) either omitted τὰ or reworded it as a noun. Erasmus’ Latin translation kept the same reading as the Vulgate.
The KJV never uses “somethings” in the plural. Indefinite pronouns like something, anything, nothing can refer to an unspecified singular entity or encompass multiple things collectively. Even in modern grammar it is not proper to use a pluralized form: somethings, anythings, nothings. A more rigid translation of the passage could have sounded unnatural: “as though ye would enquire more perfectly the things concerning him.” The KJV’s rendering “something more perfectly concerning him” avoids awkwardness while maintaining the meaning of the Greek phrase.
Conclusion: Although the KJV’s rendering aligns with the Vulgate in word choice, it is not an erroneous translation of the TR. The translation accurately conveys the meaning of the Greek text while maintaining elegant English phrasing. Most likely, the KJV translators followed traditional English versions and saw no need for revision.
Acts 24:25; TR=ἔμφοβος, Vulgate=tremefactus, KJV=trembled
Scrivener’s Perspective: The phrase ἔμφοβος γενόμενος is a second aorist participle preceded by an adjective. A literal translation would be “became afraid.” The Latin uses a perfect passive participle, and in the context of Acts 24:25, this difference has little impact on how the phrase is understood in English. Scrivener was likely noting that the KJV condenses the Greek phrase “became afraid” into the single word “trembled.”
Analysis: All pre-KJV English translations from Greek render this phrase similarly. Interestingly, it is the English versions based on the Vulgate which used multiple words: Wycliffe “Felix was maad tremblinge” and Douay-Rheims “Felix, being terrified, answered.” The 1588 Pastors and Professors of Geneva French Bible and Diodati’s Italian both use terms closer to “afraid” than “tremble,” but they still do not separately translate the Greek words.
In most cases the KJV translates all Greek words individually, using phrases like: “were afraid” (e.g., Luke 24:5) and “was afraid” (Acts 10:4). However, this is not always the case. For example in John 12:29, a more word-for-word translation of the Greek would be “had thundered.” Even so, the sequence of events remains clear: the thunder occurred before the people said that it did. In Acts 20:37, “wept sore” could also be translated as “they all began to greatly weep” or “there was great weeping by all.” In both of these cases the Latin Vulgate maintained distinct translations for the separate Greek words. As noted above, the difference is at times indistinguishable in English and at times modern translations follow a similar approach - for example, the ESV, NKJV, NIV and LSB all render Acts 7:32 as “Moses trembled...”
As far as “trembled” or “feared”, the words often overlap in meaning. For example, the 1586 Dictionarium Decem Linguarum defines tremebūndus in English as “That feareth or trembleth much,” and tremefacio as “to mak one feare or tremble.”[76] This demonstrates that historical English usage did not always sharply distinguish between the two concepts.
Conclusion: The KJV translators likely found “trembled” to be a natural and sufficient English equivalent for ἔμφοβος γενόμενος and saw no need to alter the standard English rendering. The first rule given to the KJV translators stated: “The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.”[77] Given that earlier English translations rendered the phrase similarly, and that modern translations continue the same practice in comparable cases, the KJV choice seems both reasonable and stylistically consistent.
Acts 26:6; TR= πατέρας, Vulgate= patres nostros, KJV= our fathers
Scrivener’s Perspective: The TR does not include the word “our,” but both the Vulgate and the KJV do.
Analysis: The phrase “our fathers” appears in all the pre-KJV English Bibles, as well as the 1588 French and the Spanish Bibles. However, Diodati’s Italian Bible does not include the possessive adjective. The KJV occasionally includes “our” even when it is not explicitly present in the Greek text. Examples include: Luke 3:8 “Abraham to our father”, Acts 21:7 “our course”, Romans 12:7 “our ministering”, 2 Corinthians 10:13, 14 and 15 “our measure”, Colossians 1:1 “our brother”, Philemon 1 “our brother”, 2 “our beloved”, Hebrews 12:10 “our profit”, 13:23 “our brother”, 1 Peter 4:3 “our life”, 1 John 1:9 “our sins”, 1 John 3:16 “our lives” and 3 John 14 “Our friends”. Of these 15 examples, only 2 are in the Vulgate (Hebrews 13:23 and 1 John 1:9). None of them were in italics in the 1611 KJV, although they are all italicized in the PCE (Pure Cambridge Edition). This indicates that the KJV translators did not apply a strict rule for italicizing words not explicitly found in the original Greek or Hebrew. Instead, they generally ignored changing the font for words that were implicitly understood in the context. Later publishers did not always follow the same principle regarding the use of italics.
Conclusion: At times the 1611 KJV adds “our” where it is implied by the context, even when neither the Greek text nor the Vulgate includes it. However, the fact that some instances match the Vulgate does not mean that the translators viewed it as their primary authority or the reason for their translation choices. Instead, the inclusion of “our” reflects interpretative decisions based on context, readability, beauty and the English Bible tradition.
Romans 14:2; TR=ὃς μὲν, Vulgate=alius enim, KJV=For one
Scrivener’s Perspective: The Greek word μὲν is typically translated as “indeed,” but in Romans 14:2 the KJV uses “for,” which aligns with the Vulgate’s use of enim.
Analysis: None of the pre-KJV Protestant English Bibles directly translate μὲν. However, both the Rheims New Testament and the Wycliffe Bible use the word “For.” Other translations, like Diodati’s Italian and the 1588 Pastors and Professors of Geneva French Bibles, do not translate μὲν as “for.” However, the Reina and Valera Spanish Bibles translate it as “Porque.” In Exodus 9:2, the Greek translation of the Old Testament (LXX) also uses μὲν, possibly translating the Hebrew יכ. In that context, the KJV translates it as “for,” while the Vulgate does not use enim. In Romans 14:2, translations like the MEV and NKVJ continue to use “for,” and other translations try to carry over the context from the previous verse with phrases like “For instance,” as seen in the Message and NLT.
Conclusion: Possibly the KJV translation is slightly dynamic here, but the English word “for” does have a broad range of meanings. For instance, in John Milton’s poem “For Man Will Hearken to his Glozing Lies” both the title and first line use “for” in the sense of “indeed.”[78]
Romans 16:4; TR=τὸν ἑαυτῶν τράχηλον, Vulgate=suas cervices, KJV=their own necks
Scrivener’s Perspective: The TR uses the singular “neck,” while the Vulgate uses the plural “necks.”
Analysis: The Geneva Bible is the only pre-1611 English translation that uses the singular “neck.” Other translations, such as Reina and Valera’s Spanish, the Staten Vertaling Dutch and Luther’s German, use the plural form, while Diodati’s Italian has it in the singular. There is no difference in the Critical Text at this point. However, translations like the ESV, CSB, HCSB, LSB, MEV, NASB and NET all use the plural “necks.”
Conclusion: It is not necessary for the translators to have followed the Vulgate in choosing the plural. The plural form would be consistent with natural English usage.
1 Corinthians 13:1; TR=χαλκὸς ἠχῶν, Vulgate=velut aes sonans, KJV=as sounding brass
Scrivener’s Perspective: Scrivener seems to be highlighting the use of “as” in the KJV, compared to velut in the original text.
Analysis: The word “as” appears in every previous English translation. The KJV’s base, the Bishop’s Bible, included it in brackets and the Geneva had it in italics. By 1638, a KJV printing corrected the printer’s error by placing it in italics,[79] and it continues to be in italics in the PCE.
Conclusion: This could have simply been a printer’s error, which was corrected early in the printing history of the KJV.
1 Corinthians 16:23; TR=τοῦ Kυρίου, Vulgate=domini nostri, KJV=our Lord
Scrivener’s Perspective: Scrivener points out that the KJV adds “our” to “Lord,” similar to the Vulgate, while the TR reads “the Lord.”
Analysis: The word “our” appears in both the Bishops’ Bible and the Geneva Bible, but was not in other pre-KJV English translations from Greek sources. The standard Italian, Spanish, Dutch and German Reformation-era translations did not include it, though the 1588 Pastors and Professors of Geneva French did.
Conclusion: See number 34.
Galatians 4:15; TR=τίς, Vulgate=ubi, KJV=Where
Scrivener’s Perspective: Scrivener points out that τις is an interrogative pronoun, meaning “who?”, “which?”, or “what?”, while ubi is an adverb meaning “where.” The KJV’s reading agrees with the Vulgate.
Analysis: The KJV is the first English Bible to use “where,” apart from the Douay-Rheims and Wycliffe Bibles. The Reina and Valera Spanish translations also use “where,” while Diodati’s Italian and Staten Vertaling Dutch versions lean toward “what.” The text of MS98 reads, “What was then your felicitye?”[80] John Bois’ notes record, “What is become then of the hapynesse that was ascribed unto you, of [or] your magnifying of your selves, or thinking your selves hapy for my sake, your hapynesse that is talked or spoke of.”[81] These notes suggest that the early impression of the translation leaned toward “what.” MS98 uses the past tense “was” for ἦν, although Bois records it in the present tense. This appears to be the only instance in the KJV where “is” is used in such a context.
Erasmus’ Latin translation reads, “Quae est igit beatitudo vestra?” (“What is this your blessedness?”). However, his annotation begins with the Vulgate’s “Ubi est ergo” (“Where is this…”). Erasmus’ commentary focuses on the sense of μακαρισμὸς (“blessedness”), but he also says, “I am compelled to say, ‘Where is (ubi est) your blessedness, for which I once praised you, thinking you to be blessed?’ Theophylactus likewise explains it, namely, regarding the praise by which they were proclaimed by all as lovers of teaching (φιλοδιδάσκαλοι).”[82] It seems that Erasmus would have preferred the translation “Where is” in this case. Stephanus’ 1550 edition kept the standard TR text in the main body but offered a marginal reading, “ποῦ οὖν ὁ” (“where then [is] the”) based on two of his manuscripts (GA5 and GA6). Beza’s Latin translation reads, “Quae igitur erat beatitatis vostrae predication?” (“What then was the proclamation of your blessedness?”).[83] His annotation states, “That is, how great was [erat] the widespread rumor everywhere of people proclaiming you blessed? Or (if we prefer to refer this directly to the Galatians themselves), what then was [erat] the boast of your blessedness regarding yourselves, when you declared that you had been made blessed and happy because of my arrival? [...] The Vulgate: ‘Ubi est ergo beatitudo vestra?’ That is, where then have those voices gone by which you proclaimed yourselves to be blessed, when you so eagerly received me? For it reads, ποῦ οὖν ὁ μακαρισμὸς (Where then is the blessedness?), which we can find in two of Stephanus’ ancient manuscripts.”[84]
Conclusion: This may be a place where the final KJV rendering, changing from all previous English Bibles, preferred the sense as given by Stephanus’ two Greek manuscripts, Beza and Erasmus’ footnotes and the Vulgate. The NA28 text also reads ποῦ.
To continue with Part 2 of this article click here.
Comentarios