Did a KJV translator make use of Codex Vaticanus text?

[logos1560]

Did KJV translator John Bois make use of his 1587 Rome edition of the Greek Septuagint that was based on the manuscript called Codex Vaticanus?

John Bois's own copy of this printed 1587 Rome edition of the Septuagint is said to contain "thousands of marginal and interlinear annotations in Bois's neat, distinctive hand" (Feingold, Labourers in the Vineyard of the Lord, p. 279).

John Bois is said to have made use of this 1587 Rome edition in his work on the committee translating the Apocrypha books for the KJV, but he may have also made use of it in his work on other parts of the KJV and in his later work of revising the KJV in 1638.

Nicholas Hardy claimed that the version of the KJV translators "matched the verbs in 1 Esdras 9:48 and 55 with those of Nehemiah 8 and its Septuagint translation, and in both cases it translated them exactly the same way that the Septuagint had" (Feingold, Labourers, p. 301).

 

[RiJoRi]

Oops! Never mind!

 

[Steven Avery]

The learned men of the AV used supplementary Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin and Greek sources as helps in translating the Hebrew Bible.

The above would simply be one of the auxiliary Greek sources.

 

[logos1560]

The learned men of the AV used supplementary Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin and Greek sources as helps in translating the Hebrew Bible.

Evidently using double standards or unjust divers measures, KJV-only advocates will condemn and attack other Bible translators for doing the same thing.

Do you try to avoid the fact that sometimes the Church of England makers of the KJV in effect used these sources to make textual emendations to their main Hebrew Masoretic text edition?

 

[Steven Avery]

Evidently using double standards or unjust divers measures, KJV-only advocates will condemn and attack other Bible translators for doing the same thing.

blah-blah

Sure the AV improved both the Old Testament and the New Testament of that day.
Thanks for pointing that out.

If you think that justifies the thousands of Critical Text, Westcott-Hort recensions, corruptions, say so directly.
If not, what you are writing is worthless.

You do not understand even measures.

Do you favor the elimination of the Mark ending and the Pericope Adulterae? 24 full verses.
Or are you simply being a hypocrite.

 

[logos1560]

You do not understand even measures.

That is your worthless, incorrect opinion perhaps because you have to try to avoid the truth that many KJV-only allegations do not apply the same exact measures/standards consistently and justly.

 

[Shoonra]

Erasmus, as a Catholic monk, was able to get a friend at the Vatican check a reading in the Codex Vaticanus for him, But the KJV translators had no such contacts at the Vatican and had to manage without the Vaticanus, which was not published until Napoleon's time.

 

[Steven Avery]

That is your worthless, incorrect opinion perhaps because you have to try to avoid the truth that many KJV-only allegations do not apply the same exact measures/standards consistently and justly.

blah-blah

You are so weak on logic.
Asking for the "exact same measures/standards".

 

[Steven Avery]

Erasmus, as a Catholic monk, was able to get a friend at the Vatican check a reading in the Codex Vaticanus for him, But the KJV translators had no such contacts at the Vatican and had to manage without the Vaticanus, which was not published until Napoleon's time.

Erasmus also had lived in Rome, with Bombasius and Aldus Manutius (my understanding, this was about 1508), and had visited libraries in Rome. So he had a close familiarity and likely knew at least a bit about the manuscript from that time. Very possibly saw it at the Vatican library.

The negative comments of Erasmus about the manuscript did not lead to much interest in the next century. Later Sepulveda sent him 365 readings, which were generally ignored, since they were often corruptions where the Greek was closer to the Vulgate against the Greek fountainhead.

Many Vaticanus corruptions are in neither the mass of Greek or Latin manuscripts, they are super-corruptions, like missing the Mark ending. None of the learned men of the 1500s would pay much attention to those types of variants, unless there were exceptional internal circumstances.

 

[logos1560]

blah-blah

You are so weak on logic.

At least not as weak on sound logic as your KJV-only view with its dependence upon fallacies and your irrational "blah-blah" nonsense.

 

[Theo1689]

The negative comments of Erasmus about the manuscript did not lead to much interest in the next century. Later Sepulveda sent him 365 readings, which were generally ignored, since they were often corruptions where the Greek was closer to the Vulgate against the Greek fountainhead.

Vaticanus was written c. 300-325.
The Vulgate was translated in the latter part of the 4th century.

So how could Vaticanus be "corrupted" by a translation that hadn't even been made yet?

Many Vaticanus corruptions are in neither the mass of Greek or Latin manuscripts, they are super-corruptions,

Um, Vaticanus is PART of the Greek corpus!

they are super-corruptions, like missing the Mark ending.

Well, that begs the question of what constitutes a "corruption" or "super-corruption".
Why is the longer ending of Mark not a "super-corruption"?

 

[Steven Avery]

Evidently using double standards or unjust divers measures, KJV-only advocates will condemn and attack other Bible translators for doing the same thing.

You have to be specific. Clearly you are not talking to me. Who says that auxiliary sources should not be used to help with the Masoretic Text word meanings? As described in the AV Preface.

Do you try to avoid the fact that sometimes the Church of England makers of the KJV in effect used these sources to make textual emendations to their main Hebrew Masoretic text edition?

Weasel language everywhere.
Typical Rick.

If you want to claim the AV has conjectural emendations, in the matter of the blunders of James Price, then you need to be very specific. Define emendations and give the examples.

We know you cannot write directly and cleraly.

 

[logos1560]

We know you cannot write directly and cleraly.

Your accusation is false. You merely accuse but you do not prove what you allege to be true.

Your illogical KJV-only reasoning with its dependence upon fallacies misleads you.

You have never proven your opinions concerning the varying editions of the Hebrew Masoretic text, the textually-varying TR editions, and the many varying editions of the KJV to be true. You make claims that you do not back up and prove. You do not clearly and directly make any positive, clear, consistent, sound, true, scriptural case for your KJV-only opinions.

You do not practice what you preach since you do not even define your terms of accusation against others and do not apply them justly.

 

[logos1560]

Erasmus also had lived in Rome, with Bombasius and Aldus Manutius (my understanding, this was about 1508), and had visited libraries in Rome. So he had a close familiarity and likely knew at least a bit about the manuscript from that time. Very possibly saw it at the Vatican library.

Are you suggesting that you used vague, non-specific, unclear, weasel language in your speculations and assumptions?

 

[Steven Avery]

On that issue, I was simply accurate. The info available is thin.

As expected, you used weasel-language to avoid my question about conjectural emendation sand the Masoretic Text.

 

[logos1560]

There was no need to respond to your non-specific, weasel statement based on non-scholarly allegations and misrepresentations against an actual Hebrew Bible scholar, Dr. James D. Price.

Perhaps you improperly try to call facts "sand" since you accept the sand of non-scriptural KJV-onlyism. Dr. Price does not claim to be perfect, but he is clearly more scholarly than Steven Avery and his non-scholarly erroneous KJV-onlyism is. KJV-only carnal smear tactics are not scholarly nor sound.

 

[Steven Avery]

an actual Hebrew Bible scholar, Dr. James D. Price.

If you think James Price is a scholar, why don't you quote and try to defend his absurd claims about Masoretic Text emendations in the King James Bible. Suggestion ... start with the two full verses: Joshua 21:36-37.

 

[logos1560]

Steven, do you try to dodge and ignore the fact that James D. Price, as a sound scholar, was dealing with the claims made by KJV-only advocates such as D. A. Waite, a leading "scholar" for the KJV-only side? You incorrectly try to take his points out of context as you try to misrepresent and distort them. James D. Price explained and soundly defended his own scholarly response to actual KJV-only claims by Waite and others. You likely have not even entirely read his scholarly book.

D. A. Waite maintained that "the Old Testament basis of our KING JAMES BIBLE" was this Second Rabbinic Bible edited by ben Chayim (Defending the KJB, pp. 27, 38). Waite asserted that the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text “is the text that underlies the King James Bible” (p. 27). Waite commented: “It is a sad day when a supposedly Bible-believing evangelical will emend the traditional Masoretic text itself” (p. 38). Waite wrote: “We do want to go back to the Hebrew and Greek text that God has preserved for us and from which the King James Bible was taken the Masoretic Ben Chayyim Hebrew and the Traditional received Textus Receptus Greek” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 20). Waite asserted: “The Masoretic Hebrew Text is the ONLY text to follow in the Old Testament! All others must be rejected!“ (NKJV Compared to KJV, p. xiii). Waite wrote: “The Hebrew Old Testament to use is that which underlies the King James Bible. It is the Daniel Bomberg edition of 1524-25 which was the standard for the next 400 years” (Critical Answer to James Price‘s, p. 83). D. A. Waite indicated that the view that "the Second Rabbinic Bible is an inerrant reproduction of the original manuscripts" is his "position completely" or that it was a "perfect Masoretic text" is his "belief exactly" (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 41). Waite contended that “the difference between the King James Bible and all the other versions and perversions is that the King James Bible translates what the Hebrew says” (Fundamentalist Distortions, p. 22). Waite asserted that “something with alleged ‘scribal errors’ cannot be ‘preserved for us’ if you mean, as I do, inerrant preservation of the Words of the Bible” (p. 23). Waite wrote: “it is my considered opinion that the Hebrew and Greek texts underlying the King James Bible are also inerrant and infallible” (p. 10). Waite maintained that “the words of the Old Testament Hebrew were preserved to the letter” (Bob Jones, p. 21).

In his book published by Samuel Gipp, James Kahler asserted: “It [referring to the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text] alone can attest to being the faithful text of the Old Testament” (Charted History, p. 10). In his book published by the Dean Burgon Society, Dennis Kwok asserted: “The Ben Chayyim Text is the faithful text that follows the traditional and providentially preserved manuscripts. This Hebrew Text underlying the KJB is totally infallible and inerrant” (Verbal Plenary Preservation, p. 128). Troy Clark claimed: “This Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text, called the Great Second Rabbinic Bible became the standard Old Testament Text for the next 400 years leading up to the 20th century. This is the Hebrew Old Testament Text mirroring the English 1611 King James Bible Old Testament. It is perfectly inspired, and equally preserved by Word-equals-Word formal equivalency method from the original, God-breathed Old Testament books” (Perfect Bible, p. 60).

Taking typical KJV-only claims such as those by Waite and applying them consistently, James D. Price wrote: "Emendations in the Old Testament are regarded as departures from the Bomberg second edition edited by Jacob ben Chayyim, the Old Testament Textus Receptus" (King James Onlyism, p. 280). Price clearly pointed out that he used the term "emendations" as KJV-only authors such as D. A. Waite used it in order to point out the problems with their incorrect KJV-only claims.

 

[logos1560]

That is an absurd definition.

Your allegation is false. It is the same definition for emendation that D. A. Waite suggested and used so James D. Price was entitled to use the term the same way that Waite used it. Unlike many KJV-only authors, James D. Price defined and explained how he used a term so no reader should misunderstand and misrepresent it as you try to do. You dodge and avoid the actual assertions made by KJV-only authors such as D. A. Waite.

D. A. Waite maintained that "the Old Testament basis of our KING JAMES BIBLE" was this Second Rabbinic Bible edited by ben Chayim (Defending the KJB, pp. 27, 38). Waite asserted that the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text “is the text that underlies the King James Bible” (p. 27). Waite commented: “It is a sad day when a supposedly Bible-believing evangelical will emend the traditional Masoretic text itself” (p. 38). Waite's book Defending the KJB was one of the main KJV-only books which Dr. Price was answering.

 

[Steven Avery]

D. A. Waite maintained that "the Old Testament basis of our KING JAMES BIBLE" was this Second Rabbinic Bible edited by ben Chayim (Defending the KJB, pp. 27, 38). Waite asserted that the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text “is the text that underlies the King James Bible” (p. 27).

Since Waite is obviously wrong, only a person with an unscholarly agenda would use those words as the basis of claiming emendations to the Masoretic Text. And that unscholarly person is James Price. Error begets error.

In fact, KJB defender writer Paul Heisey has been trying to correct Waite on this for years, in correspondence. And I have written on this for many years. as well, but not to Waite.