Was the Old Latin Version pure and in agreement with the KJV?

logos1560

Well-known member
KJV-only authors have identified the Old Latin Version as being pure and in agreement with the 1611 KJV. Here are examples of assertions by KJV-only authors that have not proven to be true.

Peter Ruckman included the Old Latin Version in his line of good Bibles (Bible Babel, p. 82; Monarch of the Books, p. 10). In his commentary on Psalms, Ruckman listed “the Old Latin” as the fifth installment (I, pp. 70-71). Peter Ruckman claimed: “Many times, the Old Latin agrees with the Textus Receptus in its Old Testament renderings” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 93). Will Kinney wrote that “an educated guess would be that God preserved His perfect words in the Old Latin Bibles” (Flaming Torch, April-June, 2003, p. 18). William Grady suggested that the Old Latin “was also closely allied to the Textus Receptus” (Final Authority, p. 35). David Sorenson maintained that the Old Latin “was translated from the Received Text” (Touch Not, p. 79). David Cloud asserted that “the Scripture was also preserved in the Latin” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 92). David Cloud maintained that “the witness of the Latin manuscripts and other versions have significance in determining the text of Scripture, because these were even more commonly used by the churches through the Dark Ages than the Greek” (p. 219). Gail Riplinger referred to “pure Old Latin Bibles” (In Awe, p. 704). Alan O’Reilly referred to “faithful early translations such as the Old Latin” (O Biblios, p. 2). Jeff McArdle wrote: “Those old Latin Bibles (not including the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate translated by Jerome) were the words of God given to God’s people in their own language” (Bible Believer’s Guide, p. 25). Jack Chick listed the Old Latin as a Bible that was “exactly copied and correctly translated” (Next Step, p. 8). Gary Miller indicated that the Old Latin was one of the “faithful translations of both the Old Testament and New Testament” (Why the KJB, p. 40). Donald Clarke maintained that the KJV is “in harmony” with the ancient versions that he mentioned which included the Old Latin (Bible Version Manual, pp. 18-20). He contended that the Old Latin Bibles “agree with the King James Bible of 1611” (p. 19).
 

Steven Avery

Active member
And I have brought forth a lot of correction on this question among AV defenders.
Bryan Ross as well, he saw my writing on two streams and did his own research.

It was actually Doug Kutilek who wrote on this, way before Rick.
On this topic, Doug Kutilek was very good, and far more coherent than Rick.

Thus Rick uses a quote from Will Kinney from 2003! Will has understood this far more excellently today.
Why such a quote? That is because Rick is not interested in scholarship.

Of course, with Rick you cannot tell which quotes are actually accurate and which are false.
Why? Rick is an anti-scholar.

=================

Here is an example of an accurate quote above.

David Cloud maintained that “the witness of the Latin manuscripts and other versions have significance in determining the text of Scripture, because these were even more commonly used by the churches through the Dark Ages than the Greek” (p. 219).

==================

Here are two of many that are wrong.

William Grady suggested that the Old Latin “was also closely allied to the Textus Receptus” (Final Authority, p. 35). David Sorenson maintained that the Old Latin “was translated from the Received Text” (Touch Not, p. 79).

==================
 
Last edited:

BJ Bear

Well-known member
KJV-only authors have identified the Old Latin Version as being pure and in agreement with the 1611 KJV. Here are examples of assertions by KJV-only authors that have not proven to be true.

Peter Ruckman included the Old Latin Version in his line of good Bibles (Bible Babel, p. 82; Monarch of the Books, p. 10). In his commentary on Psalms, Ruckman listed “the Old Latin” as the fifth installment (I, pp. 70-71). Peter Ruckman claimed: “Many times, the Old Latin agrees with the Textus Receptus in its Old Testament renderings” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 93). Will Kinney wrote that “an educated guess would be that God preserved His perfect words in the Old Latin Bibles” (Flaming Torch, April-June, 2003, p. 18). William Grady suggested that the Old Latin “was also closely allied to the Textus Receptus” (Final Authority, p. 35). David Sorenson maintained that the Old Latin “was translated from the Received Text” (Touch Not, p. 79). David Cloud asserted that “the Scripture was also preserved in the Latin” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 92). David Cloud maintained that “the witness of the Latin manuscripts and other versions have significance in determining the text of Scripture, because these were even more commonly used by the churches through the Dark Ages than the Greek” (p. 219). Gail Riplinger referred to “pure Old Latin Bibles” (In Awe, p. 704). Alan O’Reilly referred to “faithful early translations such as the Old Latin” (O Biblios, p. 2). Jeff McArdle wrote: “Those old Latin Bibles (not including the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate translated by Jerome) were the words of God given to God’s people in their own language” (Bible Believer’s Guide, p. 25). Jack Chick listed the Old Latin as a Bible that was “exactly copied and correctly translated” (Next Step, p. 8). Gary Miller indicated that the Old Latin was one of the “faithful translations of both the Old Testament and New Testament” (Why the KJB, p. 40). Donald Clarke maintained that the KJV is “in harmony” with the ancient versions that he mentioned which included the Old Latin (Bible Version Manual, pp. 18-20). He contended that the Old Latin Bibles “agree with the King James Bible of 1611” (p. 19).
To the question asked in the title of the OP: No.

If someone has purported evidence in support of the bald assertions in the body of the post that would lead someone answer yes then post that.
 

Steven Avery

Active member
To the question asked in the title of the OP: No.
If someone has purported evidence in support of the bald assertions in the body of the post that would lead someone answer yes then post that.

If you talk to the King James Bible and Reformation Bible/Confessional defenders on Facebook, pretty much all are aware that the Old Latin is not very special as a source. This myth developed out of the writings of Benjamin Wilkinson starting in 1930, then to David Otis Fuller and hung on till the last decade or two. Since it was in so many books, you can still find it repeated occasionally.

Wilkinson as an Adventist had a special simpatico with the Waldensians, and tried to work with some writings from Frederick Nolan (which he mangled) to place them with a pristine Old Latin Bible.

It is true that the Waldensians had a true love for their Bibles, which was very different than the RCC approach, but textually there was a lot of similarity and overlap in the actual texts. The Vulgate was a major source for Waldensian Bibles, but even if they were more on the Old Latin line, that would not make them superior and would not make them closer to the Received Text.

There are many places, like the heavenly witnesses and Acts 8:37, where the Latin evidences concur in supporting the TR text. That would include the Old Latin mss., the Vulgate and the references by the early church writers. Similarly with the Mark ending and the Pericope Adulterae.

Doug Kutilek helped with this scholarship in his writings starting around 1990. While on many topics Kutilek is a disaster, he gets praise for emphasizing this point. Rick Norris should give him credit for opening up the issue, but with Rick you even have true and false quotes mixed together, so it is a ball of confusion.

Wilkinson's Incredible Errors
by Doug Kutilek
[Originally published in Baptist Biblical Heritage, Vol. I, No. 3; Fall, 1990]

Wilkinson repeatedly asserts that the Old Latin translation is Byzantine in text, and that the Bible of the medieval Waldenses was made from the Old Latin instead of the Vulgate. Neither of these assertions is true. ... [See also the article, “The Truth About the Waldensian Bible and the Old Latin Version,” by Doug Kutilek].
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Well-known member
Peter Ruckman claimed: “Many times, the Old Latin agrees with the Textus Receptus in its Old Testament renderings” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 93).

In the Old Testament, the Old Latin versions were translated from the Greek Septuagint and were thus a translation of a translation (Geisler, General Introduction to the Bible, p. 528). A New Standard Bible Dictionary noted that in the second century “the Septuagint was first translated into Latin, the Old Latin Bible (Vetus Itala) (p. 936). F. H. A. Scrivener as edited by Edward Miller also indicated that the O. T. of the Old Latin “was made from the Greek Septuagint” (Plain Introduction, II, p. 57). Edward F. Hills acknowledged that “the earlier Latin version of the Old Testament was a translation of the Septuagint” (KJV Defended, p. 95). In their preface to the 1611, the KJV translators asserted that the [Old] Latin translations “were not out of the Hebrew fountain (we speak of the Latin Translations of the Old Testament) but out of the Greek stream.” Reformer Francis Turretin affirmed that “the Latin version in use before the time of Jerome” was made from the Greek Septuagint (Institutes, I, p. 127). Jakob van Bruggen also indicated that the O. T. of the first Latin translations was made from the Greek Septuagint (Future, p. 40). Jakob van Bruggen mentioned Augustine’s objection to Jerome’s translating from the Hebrew instead of from the Greek underlying text of the Old Latin (p. 41). Adam Kamesar cited that “Jerome notes that while his own version has been translated from the original source, the Old Latin has been ‘poured into the third jar’” (Jerome, p. 45). In an introductory article to The Abingdon Bible Commentary, Ira Price observed that the O. T. of the Old Latin was “a translation of the LXX” (p. 105; also Price‘s Ancestory, p. 159). Thomas Horne noted that “the Old Italic was translated from the Greek in the Old Testament” (Introduction, II, p. 235). Merrill Unger maintained that the Old Testament of the Old Latin “was made from the Septuagint and slavishly follows it, even to the extent of reproducing evident blunders” (Introductory Guide, p. 170).

Kyle McCarter gave an example of where the Septuagint and the Old Latin agreed in preserving a long passage at 1 Samuel 14:41 that “was lost from MT when a scribe’s eye skipped from the first ysr’l to the third” (Textual Criticism, p. 41). William McKane presented the examples of Genesis 31:35 where “the words ‘in every part of the tent” appear in the Septuagint and the Old Latin, but not in the Hebrew” and of Genesis 35:4 where the additional words are “’and desecrated them’ and ‘which can still be seen to-day’” (Selected Christian Hebraists, p. 34). William McKane cited that Simon traced the Old Latin rendering nutritus ‘nourished’ at Genesis 15:15 “to an inner Greek corruption” (p. 136).

Is it surprising and inconsistent that KJV-only authors place translations on their good line of Bible or in their pure stream of Bibles whose O. T. was translated from the Greek LXX?
 

Steven Avery

Active member
Thank you for affirming my previous post.

With the Old Testament emphasis.

The early Latin Old Testament was translated from the Greek.
Until the time of Jerome's excellent Vulgate edition, which was most all from the Hebrew veritas.

The quote from the AV Preface does not make that distinction clear, as stripped down by Rick.
They actually included:

This moved S. Jerome a most learned father, and the best linguist without controversy, of his age, or of any that went before him, to undertake the translating of the Old Testament, out of the very fountain with that evidence of great learning, judgment, industry, and faithfulness, that he had forever bound the Church unto him, in a debt of special remembrance and thankfulness.

This should have been included by Rick, if his purpose had been scholarship.

And I will not bother right now with the Kyle McCarter and William McKane claims until Rick Norris says if he believes they are right or wrong. They look wrong to me, but if Rick is not going to take a position, I will not spend time on them. Rick's purpose is not scholarship, so he weasels around quotes of that nature. Rick tries to give an appearance of agreement ... but says nothing about his actual position. Very tricky.

Actually the William McKane material is vague, it does not even give his position.

The Peter Ruckman quote is a bit unusual, and really needs context. It is decades old and quite irrelevant. The book was first published in 1988, note how Rick hides that fact.
 
Last edited:

logos1560

Well-known member
=================

Here is an example of an accurate quote above.

David Cloud maintained that “the witness of the Latin manuscripts and other versions have significance in determining the text of Scripture, because these were even more commonly used by the churches through the Dark Ages than the Greek” (p. 219).
You may choose to agree with David Cloud's unproven speculation and assertion because of your own erroneous KJV-only view, but you do not prove David Cloud's statement to be accurate or true. Because you claim that it is accurate does not make it so. It is not known that a statement is accurate or true just because you claim it is.

David Cloud does not demonstrate that God failed to preserve some of the words that He gave by inspiration to the NT prophets and apostles so that they supposedly have to be restored by translating them from imperfect, unreliable Latin manuscripts into Greek.

H. A. G. Houghton noted: “The Latin translation of the New Testament is not a word-for-word equivalent which can easily be retroverted to reconstruct its Greek source” (Latin NT, p. 143). Houghton maintained that “certain elements of Greek cannot be rendered directly into Latin” (p. 147). Houghton claimed: “The oldest surviving manuscripts of the Latin New Testament were copied in the fourth century” (p. 19). Houghton asserted that “even in the earliest Latin tradition there is a degree of harmonizing interference” (p. 144). Houghton claimed that “the earliest Latin version was the loosest, often paraphrasing and sometimes even omitting material which appeared to be superfluous” (pp. 143-144). Houghton pointed out several examples of interpolations, glosses, or additions in Latin manuscripts (pp. 158, 159, 161, 163, 167-169, 174, 179).
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Active member
Are you really taking a Greek-only position?

That Latin and Syriac and other versional evidences are not significant?

If so, you clearly know nothing about textual studies.
Your quotes do not touch on this issue.

Both the Latin and Greek were imperfect, and the Reformation Bible took the best of both lines!

Since you are only interested in deficient quote-mining, without saying whether the quotes are true or false, I really can not waste my time with your junk. However, if others step in, we can discuss.

Generally Old Latin oddball glosses were cleaned up in the Vulgate, so your quotes are not even on the topic.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Of course, with Rick you cannot tell which quotes are actually accurate and which are false.
Why? Rick is an anti-scholar.
Your allegation is false. I am not anti-scholar.

Many KJV-only advocates are at times anti-scholar. Do you demonstrate to readers that you are the one rejecting statements by scholars and advocating your non-scholarly opinions as supposedly being superior? You are the one who seeks to dismiss or smear statements by scholars as being "junk." Evidently you cannot deal with quotations that would conflict with your non-scholarly, deficient opinions.

It may be anti-scholar for you to try to suggest that it is up to me to say whether quotations by scholars are accurate or not. The facts would determine whether assertions or statements by scholars are accurate, not my or your opinion saying so. Your deficient, diversionary tactic failed.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Your allegation is false. I am not anti-scholar.

Many KJV-only advocates are at times anti-scholar. Do you demonstrate to readers that you are the one rejecting statements by scholars and advocating your non-scholarly opinions as supposedly being superior? You are the one who seeks to dismiss or smear statements by scholars as being "junk." Evidently you cannot deal with quotations that would conflict with your non-scholarly, deficient opinions.

It may be anti-scholar for you to try to suggest that it is up to me to say whether quotations by scholars are accurate or not. The facts would determine whether assertions or statements by scholars are accurate, not my or your opinion saying so. Your deficient, diversionary tactic failed.

It seems that KJV-only's engage mostly in "appeal to authority". They love quoting people who agree with them, calling them "scholars", and dissing any actual scholars who disagree with evidence that doesn't support the KJV rendering.

Why not discuss the actual EVIDENCE, namely the reading of the manuscripts? Why not discuss ground rules about evidence, such as what you point out, the more a text has been translated, the further away from the original reading we get. But no, all we get is, "This Greek manuscript differs from the KJV, so it must be corrupt".

Which begs the question.

They whine about John 5:4 being allegedly "removed" (when it was not original, and was a marginal note that was added to the text later), even though it doesn't include any doctrinally significant material.

They whine when they claim that the doxology was allegedly "removed" (begging the question) from the Lord's Prayer in Luke, even though it's still in the Matthew version.

They when when they claim that "firstborn" was allegedly "removed" (begging the question) from Matt. 1:25, even though it's still present in Luke 2:7.


And the worst sin they commit is their bias, that when something is present in the KJV but absent in the modern versions, the ASSUMPTION is that it was "removed" (assuming the KJV as the standard of truth), not something that was absent, but added later.

All they've been "successful" in proving is that the modern translations are not identical to the KJV. But we already KNEW that. The question gone begging is which translations are more accurate to the Biblical autographs, and we need a more unbiased and objective standard than, "anything that agrees with the KJV is accurate, and anything that disagrees with the KJV is corrupt".
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Clearly you are.
Clearly you are wrong. You have not demonstrated that you understand what sound scholarship is. You blindly accept the non-scholarly and unscholarly KJV-only theory, which would demonstrate your rejection of sound scholarship.

You present no verifiable facts to back up your allegations against quotations from scholars. The facts would determine whether assertions or statements by scholars are accurate, not my or your opinion saying so. Statements are not true or false because you claim that they are.

Your seeming attempt to get others to accept blindly your unsupported opinions and allegations is not scholarly.
 

Steven Avery

Active member
Clearly you are wrong. You have not demonstrated that you understand what sound scholarship is. You blindly accept the non-scholarly and unscholarly KJV-only theory, which would demonstrate your rejection of sound scholarship. You present no verifiable facts to back up your allegations against quotations from scholars. The facts would determine whether assertions or statements by scholars are accurate, not my or your opinion saying so. Statements are not true or false because you claim that they are. Your seeming attempt to get others to accept blindly your unsupported opinions and allegations is not scholarly.
Seven sentences of blah-blah.
 

imJRR

Active member
Seven sentences of blah-blah.

No. I don't believe that accusation is accurate or true. It is most definitely, most certainly not accurate or true because you post it; and it most definitely, most certainly is not polite at all. I submit that if that sort of put-down posting is your idea of genuinely reasonable and civil discussion - No, it's really not. As for KJVONLYism itself, I myself, have never seen anything from any KJVONLYist that can rightly be called real, actual, verifiable facts to support the idea/position. To say it another way - I've never seen or heard anything anywhere that truly can be called "real" that would cause me to change from viewing and believing that KJVONLYism is an imagination - One with some significantly negative results.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Active member
The seven sentences said nothing about the topic.

It was simply a quasi-sophisticated yet awkward modern ad hominem attempt.

The purpose was simply to avoid the problems in his quote-fest.
 
Last edited:

imJRR

Active member
The seven sentences said nothing about the topic.

It was simply a quasi-sophisticated yet awkward modern ad hominem attempt.

The purpose was simply to avoid the problems in his quote-fest.

Regarding the first statement - Your own post of, "Seven sentences of blah-blah" says nothing about the topic. It is, in effect, nothing less than a very personal put-down itself. Perhaps Matt. 7:5 applies here.

Regarding the second statement - Although the personal word "you" is used, It is not really difficult to see that the comments themselves are not really personal ad hom. However, the adjectives you used in this statement do make it another personal put-down. Actually, from the look and read of it, this second statement of yours looks like it might possibly fit into that category better.

As for the third statement - Meh. That looks to be more of an assertion/accusation without substantiation. I don't believe there is "avoidance" or "problems" in what has been written. If you're going to make that assertion, then showing the "how" of how that may be true is needed. This does not happen.
 

imJRR

Active member
In the quote-fest from Rick, which statements does he believe are true?
Which statements does he believe are false?

I cannot answer that, because I have not been following the discussion because there are other discussions going on that have significantly more interest for me.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
H. A. G. Houghton noted: “The Latin translation of the New Testament is not a word-for-word equivalent which can easily be retroverted to reconstruct its Greek source” (Latin NT, p. 143). Houghton maintained that “certain elements of Greek cannot be rendered directly into Latin” (p. 147). Houghton claimed: “The oldest surviving manuscripts of the Latin New Testament were copied in the fourth century” (p. 19). Houghton asserted that “even in the earliest Latin tradition there is a degree of harmonizing interference” (p. 144). Houghton claimed that “the earliest Latin version was the loosest, often paraphrasing and sometimes even omitting material which appeared to be superfluous” (pp. 143-144). Houghton pointed out several examples of interpolations, glosses, or additions in Latin manuscripts (pp. 158, 159, 161, 163, 167-169, 174, 179).


The 2016 book The Latin New Testament: A Guide to its Early History, Texts, and Manuscripts by H. A. G. Houghton has some of the most recent research and information concerning the Old Latin manuscripts and Latin Vulgate manuscripts. This book is a more scholarly source for information concerning the Old Latin than KJV-only author David Cloud's book is. David Cloud likely has not examined any Latin manuscripts himself.
 
Top