By Calvin George
I believe the KJV is accurate, reliable, and trustworthy. I use it exclusively in English. Since I have a bilingual ministry, and since some have harshly criticized the Spanish Bible version most fundamentalists use, it is only natural to consider translation practices of the KJV translators to compare with practices and textual relationships that have been questioned in the common Spanish Bible.
My only motivations in this matter are academic issues due to questions that have surfaced regarding foreign Bible translations. In my writings, I have made mention of studies others have done regarding apparent Latin Vulgate readings in the KJV, mostly Scrivener. When it comes to the issue of possible Latin Vulgate departures in the KJV, we are only speaking of technicalities that likely only involve an extremely small percentage of readings. They do not affect doctrine nor the trustworthiness of the AV.
Because some have pointed out technicalities in TR-based foreign language Bibles used on the mission field, it is only fair to likewise consider similar technicalities in the KJV. The motive is not looking for something to cause embarrassment for the cause of the KJV (it is the English Bible I use and uphold after all), but rather fairness and an avoidance of double standards when it comes to Bibles in other languages. Comparing issues with the KJV helps place matters into perspective.
Historically, it seems the one who had initially done the deepest study on the Latin Vulgate connection with the KJV was Frederick Scrivener. He became intimately acquainted with the KJV text in the process of editing his Greek text seeking to reflect the textual choices of the KJV translators. His conclusions regarding sixty readings in which he believed the KJV translators apparently followed the Latin Vulgate are presented in an abbreviated form as follows:
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, whereof the Epistle of the Translators to the Reader speaks so contemptuously (see below, p. 302). It is probable that at least some of the passages collected in the first section of the present Appendix, wherein the text of the Authorized Version is supported by Compl., Vulg. only, were derived from the Vulgate rather than from the Completensian. In 1 Cor. xiv. 10; 1 John i. 5, where Colinaeus (1534) and the Vulgate alone favour the rendering of 1611, the Vulgate is almost certainly the authority, not Colinaeus. (Scrivener, Frederick. The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives. Cambridge University Press, 1884, p. 262)
There are various writers friendly to the KJV who have likewise pointed out that the KJV follows the Latin Vulgate at times. The following are some examples:
The major representative of these translations is the Latin translation of Jerome called the Vulgate. This is the version which influenced many Bibles and affirmed Westcott and Hort’s readings. We must add quickly, however, that this is the version whose readings were rejected by Erasmus and the KJB translators except for a limited number. (Williams, H. D. The Lie that Changed the Modern World. The Bible For Today Press, 2004, p. 235)
The translators of the KJV used multiple editions of the TR, the Latin Vulgate, and prior English translations as their base. (Keesee, Charles. A Subtle Apostasy. Self-published, 2018, p. 119)
The Translators of 1611, not understanding the incident, were content, as Tyndale, following the Vulgate, had been before them, to render ἀπέπλυναν τὰ δίκτυα, – ‘were washing their nets.’ Of this rendering, so long as the Greek was let alone, no serious harm could come. (Burgon, John. The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vindicated and Established. Oxford: Horace Hart, 1896, p. 212)
Sometimes the King James translators forsook the printed Greek text and united with the earlier English versions in following the Latin Vulgate. (Hills, Edward. Believing Bible Study. Des Moines, IA: The Christian Research Press, 1991, p. 207)
Yetzer’s analysis of Scrivener’s research
Recently, missionary Cristopher Yetzer did a study of all 60 places where Scrivener believed the KJV translators apparently followed the Latin Vulgate. In can be found in several locations, including here: https://www.academia.edu/142898710/Scriveners_60
Yetzer makes many valid points and helps demonstrate that a KJV reading should not be thrown out or considered invalid merely if it matches the Latin Vulgate. (That was never my contention to begin with).
I do not have sharp disagreements with Yetzer’s analysis. I tend to think he may go out on a limb at times with some conclusions, but he seems to do careful research (although I didn’t double-check a lot of his work).
Quite often Yetzer appeals to English Reformation Bibles, respected foreign translations, and Erasmus and Beza’s Latin NT’s when the KJV reading matches the Latin Vulgate and in turn does not match the Textus Receptus. He points out alternative ways in which the KJV could have followed other sources, which led to a match with the Latin Vulgate, possibly not intentionally.
Pastor Rodriguez’ harsh criticism
Now I will switch gears to respond to severe criticism of my writings by Pastor Emmanuel Rodriguez for having brought up the research of others on this topic in my writings, such as Scrivener. Pastor Rodriguez heads up the Reina Valera Gomez Bible Society. This year he wrote an article by the title “Calvin George Falsely Accuses the King James Version of Departing from the Textus Receptus” located here: https://www.sociedadrvg.com/en/post/calvin-george-falsely-accuses-the-king-james-version-of-departing-from-the-textus-receptus-part-1
Starting from the very title of his article, he accuses me openly and blatantly of false accusations. He appeals to Yetzer’s article as if it proved that I am wrong for referring to Scrivener’s conclusions.
Here is an example of an accusation in the article:
“There are no departures from the Textus Receptus in the KJV, as Calvin George claims. He is twisting the facts and spreading misinformation for his personal agenda to defend the indefensible.”
There’s one major problem with Pastor Rodriguez’ statement. There are a few places where the KJV matches the Latin Vulgate that also match modern critical texts against the TR editions (Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza) that Scrivener checked. Several cases will be documented as we go along.
When I have pointed out that the KJV followed the Latin Vulgate at times, it was to add some perspective as it relates to foreign language Bibles. Some missionaries arrive on the mission field full of zeal only to notice that there are some differences between the Textus Receptus-based foreign language Bibles available for them to use and the KJV with which they grew up, and end up saying hurtful and offensive things about the Bible which local believers trust. In some cases, in some languages, missionaries have tried to impose a new TR-based revision harshly, instead of offering it as an alternative. They approached the matter with a bad spirit, like a bull in a China shop, causing hurtful division and strife.
In some cases there could have been incidental agreement with the Latin Vulgate in the KJV
In some cases, there could have been incidental agreement with the Latin Vulgate in the KJV. An example mentioned in Yetzer’s research would be how the KJV consistently translated the act of casting lots (when not involving the one drawn or chosen) in plural, regardless of whether the Greek was worded in singular or plural. In such cases it could simply be a translational issue in which the KJV simply remained consistent, for stylistic reasons, and any correlation with the Latin Vulgate could be incidental.
Along the same thought, I believe there are a number of cases in which the common Spanish Bible is accused of having a critical text reading, where incidental agreement might have taken place. For example, my critic’s RVG Bible Society website lists Rev. 14:5 as a critical text reading because it has mentira (lie) instead of engaño (deceit); toleras (tolerate) instead of permites (permit or allow) in Rev. 2:20; sea ignorante (be ignorant) instead ignore (roughly “continue to be ignorant”) in 1 Cor. 14:38; esto (this—in a collective sense, per context) instead of estas cosas (these things) (Rom. 14:18). Other examples could be offered. This can be verified here: https://www.sociedadrvg.com/_files/ugd/983074_fd47e3f6ed734d5094a71f5b2ab5f788.doc?dn=reina-valeras-compared-1.doc
Cases where a KJV reading matching the Latin Vulgate also matches modern critical texts involving Greek words singled out in the Spanish Bible
1 Peter 2:13 is a rare case in the KJV that, on a technicality, matches the Latin Vulgate and critical texts, such as NA26/27. When following the TR, the verse should start by translating the Greek word oun (therefore, accordingly). The KJV does not translate this word. It could be pointed out, as Yetzer does, that some Reformation Bibles do not always translate the Greek word, and that the KJV does not always translate Greek conjunctions because of the nature of the English language, etc. But if I were to attempt to defend a Spanish Bible reading in like manner, the typical reactions of those who are opposed to the RV1909/1960 are “man must live by every word!” “It doesn’t matter what your research found; you are defending a critical text reading!”
The very Greek TR word that the KJV does not translate in 1 Peter 2:13 matching the Latin Vulgate and critical texts is singled out in the Reina-Valera 1960 for not translating the TR word in a different passage on the website of the RV Gomez Bible Society that Rodriguez heads up. This can be verified at 2 Tim. 4:1 here: https://www.sociedadrvg.com/_files/ugd/983074_fd47e3f6ed734d5094a71f5b2ab5f788.doc?dn=reina-valeras-compared-1.doc
Where the KJV matches the Latin Vulgate, I don’t consider it a corruption, but rather an idiosyncrasy.
Another technicality in which a KJV reading matches the Latin Vulgate and modern critical texts against the TR is Jn. 12:26. The TR in this verse has kai (normally translated as “and” or “also”) three times, while the Latin Vulgate has et twice and Nestle-Aland 26/27 has kai twice, matching the translation of the KJV. In defense of the KJV, being bilingual myself, I am aware that conjunctions are not always translated because they are sometimes already implied in the receiving language, and forcing a conjunction in a language where it is unneeded could sound unnatural. However, this did not stop the website of the Reina-Valera Gomez Society which Rodriguez heads up, from singling out the lack of translation of this very Greek word in 2 Cor. 8:24 and Rev. 1:6, blaming it on the critical text. In 2 Cor. 8:24 kai appears twice in the TR, and only once in the critical text (such as Nestle-Aland 26/27), matching the 1569, 1602, 1862, 1909 and 1960 Spanish Bibles. The omission of this word is excused in the King James Version at John 12:26, but not in the Spanish Bibles they attempt to replace.
The Latin Vulgate readings in the KJV that in turn match a critical text edition (such as Nestle-Aland 26/27) versus the Textus Receptus editions before 1611 are mostly technicalities and are a very insignificant percentage when put in perspective with the whole text of the NT. Some might be incidental correspondence.
There are others who have concluded that the KJV has a few critical text readings in it. Laurence Vance, who is pro-KJV, reaches the same conclusion in a book quoted approvingly multiple times by Pastor Rodriguez in his article being addressed. Vance had to do massive research for his 468-page book, The Text of the King James Bible. In the 2025 edition of his book, on p. 423, referring to Luke 23:46, he concludes:
The AV reading ultimately goes back to the CT [Critical Text] reading of παρατίθεμαι, “I commend,” which is in the present instead of the future tense.
The same author makes similar remarks about KJV readings going back to the critical text for Luke 1:49, Mark 14:43, John 12:26, 18:1, Acts 7:26, 13:15, 26:6; Gal. 4:15; Philp. 2:21; 1 Thes. 4:1, 1 Tim. 4:15; and 1 Peter 2:13 between pages 423-430 of his book.
The premise that not all Latin Vulgate readings are of a critical text variety
Although it would make my demonstration more difficult, let’s proceed with the premise that not every reading suspected of being linked to the Latin Vulgate in the KJV is of a critical text variety if it does not agree with modern Greek critical texts. An example of an apparent Latin Vulgate reading in the KJV that is not a critical reading in modern Greek texts is Acts 19:20, where the TR Greek word for Lord (kurios) was translated in the KJV as God. There are other sources besides the Vulgate that could have influenced the KJV at this verse, but the bottom line is, if we were to treat the KJV the way the Spanish Bible gets treated (for demonstration purposes), we would have to admit that it does not match the Textus Receptus. The 1862, 1909 and 1960 Spanish Bibles were singled out at Acts 20:28 on Rodriguez’ RV Gomez Bible Society webpage for the translation of the exact two Greek words, although backwards (TR Greek word for God translated as Lord). See https://www.sociedadrvg.com/_files/ugd/983074_fd47e3f6ed734d5094a71f5b2ab5f788.doc?dn=reina-valeras-compared-1.doc If this was wrong in those Spanish Bibles, then by principle the KJV would be wrong at Acts 19:20 when it involves the exact same words. Once again, another demonstration of a double standard.
If departing from the TR to follow the Old Latin, or Erasmus or Beza’s Latin NT, or the Peshitta does not really count as the KJV “departing from the TR,” those who say that are guilty of setting the parameters to control the outcome. That is because the Old Latin, or Erasmus or Beza’s Latin NT, or the Peshitta are not technically the same thing as the Textus Receptus.
After pointing out that one of the disputed passages where the KJV is alleged to follow the Latin Vulgate is based on the insignificance of the difference in spelling between Beelzebub and Beelzebul, Rodriguez affirms: “Such insignificant differences are what Calvin George is calling ‘departures from the TR’. Folks this is not a TR departure. IT’S THE SAME WORD, just spelled differently from one language to another!”
I did not single out this particular word, although it is in Scrivener’s list of suspected Latin Vulgate departures in the KJV that I have referenced. That Rodriguez would say those spelling differences are “insignificant differences” makes my point that there have been double standards applied to the Spanish Bible. As proof, the website of the RVG Bible Society that Rodriguez heads up has two webpages in which certain editions of the Reina-Valera are criticized for the difference in spelling of this exact word! See https://www.sociedadrvg.com/post/cu%C3%A1l-de-los-textos-recibidos-1 and https://www.sociedadrvg.com/_files/ugd/983074_fd47e3f6ed734d5094a71f5b2ab5f788.doc?dn=reina-valeras-compared-1.doc
This serves as a demonstration that much that has been said against the Reina-Valera is nitpicking, in such a way that if used against the KJV, it could be nitpicked to pieces! I’m not motivated by a desire to demean or nitpick the KJV but rather demonstrate the double standard in many arguments that have been utilized, by implementing the very same argument against the KJV to see how it fares. The KJV is not the problem, but rather fallacious or hypocritical arguments.
Consulting what is not ideal
I do not deny that it is documented that the RV-1960 revisers consulted some critical text Bibles among other sources. But, continuing our demonstrations, if we took a hard look at sources consulted by the KJV translators, we would find situations that are somewhat similar. The surviving notes of a KJV translator indicated that the Rheims New Testament was consulted. This was an English translation of the Latin Vulgate, which is one of the ways some Latin Vulgate readings could have made their way into the KJV text, without even consulting the Latin Vulgate directly. See pp. 63 and 118 of the book Translating for King James: Notes made by a translator of King James’s Bible edited by Ward Allen. In Ward Allen’s other book, Translating the New Testament Epistles 1604-1611, he analyzed the surviving notes of one of the KJV translator companies made in a copy of a Bishops Bible. His abbreviated conclusion regarding the Rheims is as follows:
The fourteenth rule directed them to use in addition to the Bishops’ Bible, Tyndale, Matthew, Coverdale, Whitchurch, and Geneva. The Rheims New Testament is not on the list. Despite this the Rheims New Testament furnished to the Synoptic Gospels and Epistles in the A.V. as many revised readings as any other single version. But this abrogation of the rules concerns a matter of scholarship rather than a matter of procedure. (Allen, Ward. Translating the New Testament Epistles 1604-1611: A Manuscript from King James’s Westminster Company. Vanderbilt University Press, 1977, p. XXV)
More documentation on the matter is found in The Part of Rheims in the Making of the English Bible by James Carleton, published by Clarendon Press in 1902.
Pastor Rodriguez in his article remained completely silent on the relationship of the KJV with Rheims, even though it formed the basis for one of my points in my article he quoted.
What I find interesting is that for years I have provided explanations for many passages in the RV 1909/1960 Spanish Bibles that have been questioned (see https://en.literaturabautista.com/explanations-problem-passages-spanish-bible-new-testament), and quite a few of Yetzer’s explanations for readings matching the Latin Vulgate in the KJV seem to have a similar strategy. Quite often Yetzer appeals to English Reformation Bibles, respected foreign translations, and even Greek manuscripts when the KJV reading doesn’t match the Textus Receptus. (To my knowledge, Yetzer has not criticized the 1909/1960, so I’m not suggesting that he is being hypocritical).
Even though similar explanations are available for problem passages in the Spanish Bible, the same critics, even when aware of the explanations, persist. For example, in Emanuel Rodriguez’s article “Calvin George’s Unscholarly Attempt to Justify Critical Text Corruption in the 1960 Reina Valera Bible” he says such a practice is “dishonest”:
The flaws found in pre-1611 Textus Receptus-based Bibles were later corrected and refined in the KJV. To go back to those flaws and use them to justify flaws in the Spanish Bible today is going backwards. That’s not good scholarship at all. In fact, its dishonest.
However, over and over again, in Calvin George’s writings, he perpetuates this intellectual dishonesty. How anyone who claims to be a proponent of the Textus Receptus and KJV can fall for Calvin George’s desperate attempts to justify the unjustifiable is mind-blowing.
We won’t take the time in this article to address every single time that Calvin George appeals to mistakes in other Textus Receptus-friendly Bible texts to justify mistakes in the RV1960. In addition to what we just showed just one more example should suffice. Be aware, however, that he does this a lot in his writings. It’s his ace up his sleeve. It’s the best he has to offer to defend the RV1960. It’s his top go-to argument, which I’m glad it is because it is extremely easy to refute. Others fall for it, however, because they don’t take the time to think it through. (https://www.sociedadrvg.com/en/post/calvin-george-s-unscholarly-attempt-to-justify-critical-text-corruption-in-the-1960-reina-valera-bib)
Hasn’t it just been stated in these paragraphs that the KJV corrects the Greek/Textus Receptus without actually saying so?
However, if English Reformation Bibles, respected foreign translations, and even Greek manuscripts are valid sources for defending the KJV, a likewise similar strategy for problem passages in the RV 1909/1960 Spanish Bibles should not be so easily dismissed. Otherwise, a double standard is evident. Allowing the KJV to be vindicated by what Rodriguez calls “TR friendly” sources, but not Spanish Bibles he wants to replace, seems self-serving.
Some Latin Vulgate readings could have been “inherited” from a previous Reformation Bibles
In some cases, a Latin Vulgate reading could have been “inherited” from a previous English Reformation Bible that from time to time incorporated a Latin Vulgate reading. For example, this may be the reason why the KJV at 1 Cor. 13:1 has “our Lord,” matching the Vulgate’s domi nostri (compare to “the Lord” in the Textus Receptus). “Our Lord” is the reading of Bishops and Geneva (according to Yetzer). Although this gives justification for the KJV reading, in that it follows precedent of previous Bibles which were overwhelmingly based on the Textus Receptus, it does not erase the fact that at 1 Cor. 13:1 there is a Latin Vulgate reading.
Research done by Yetzer does not prove the Latin Vulgate could never have been followed by the KJV translators; it simply allows for explanations, and possible alternative sources that KJV translators could have followed in places where their translation and the Latin Vulgate ended up matching, either incidentally or intentionally.
The reason I’ve mentioned that the Latin Vulgate was the equivalent or closest thing to the critical text at the time the KJV translators did their work is because the Latin Vulgate was the Textus Receptus’s primary rival at the time. It includes numerous readings that match modern critical texts (such as Nestle, W&H, UBS) against the Textus Receptus. But in the end, the Latin Vulgate is not quite as critical as those Greek texts. The Latin Vulgate has the Pericopae Adulterae (Jn. 7:53-8:11) and the last 12 verses of Mark, for example. The Latin Vulgate has its own additional issues, such as the addition of apocryphal books.
I don’t believe that I have ever stated that Latin Vulgate readings in the KJV contradict the Textus Receptus (Rodriguez did not quote me saying this), but they differ from the Textus Receptus, and that is the reason they ever made it onto the list compiled by Scrivener to begin with. I am on record from my earliest writings stating that a difference does not necessarily constitute a contradiction.
Latin influence on religious vocabulary
There is no denying that Latin has influenced the religious vocabulary of many languages. Take the word “Calvary,” for example. The Greek transliteration is spelled far differently (kranion), and its literal meaning is skull, or cranium. Latin terms that crept into our religious vocabulary in the distant past and thereby made their way into the KJV did not seem to be the focus of Scrivener’s list, however.
Some benefit of the doubt is needed if one were to deny heavy reliance of the KJV translators on the Latin Vulgate in these passages listed by Scrivener, which in my view is permissible, but there is often no allowance for the benefit of the doubt when the common Spanish Bible is ever questioned under relatively similar circumstances. This is an example of the double standard I have sought to point out in my writings from the very beginning.
Is the research a lie?
Just because there are explanations and alternative sources for places where the KJV matches the Latin Vulgate does not turn Scrivener’s or Edward Hills’ research into a lie (neither Rodriguez nor Yetzer claim that) nor does my using them as a source turn me into a deceiver, especially considering that Yetzer’s research had not even been written. Accusing someone blatantly and openly as a deceiver starting from the very title of an article is uncalled for under such circumstances. Below are aspersions cast my way by Rodriguez in his article being critiqued. The unbiased reader can decide if they are appropriate:
“Falsely accuses”
“Twisting the facts”
“Spreading misinformation”
“False” (twice)
“Very deceptive”
“Twisting” (3 times)
“Downright dishonesty”
“Deliberately misleading”
“Creating a false narrative”
“Intellectually dishonest”
“Dishonesty”
“False claims”
“Misinformation” (twice)
“Falsely accusing”
“Deceptive”
Pastor Rodriguez doesn’t know my heart. The leaders of the King James Bible Research Council (one of the places where Rodriguez’s contentious article was allowed to be posted) should ask serious questions whether they are going to continue to allow provocative articles that hurl charges of deception against other independent Baptists who use the KJV but are not in lockstep with them in some debatable areas.
In my first book, written in 2001 when I was still in my twenties, I acknowledge that I did go overboard in some rhetoric, which I have made attempts to correct since then.
Pastor Rodriguez was correct in at least one area that I will proceed to explain.
An admission on my part
In a previous edition of my article “Double Standards in the Spanish Bible Issue,” (https://en.literaturabautista.com/double-standards-spanish-bible-issue) I was criticized for the way I used a quote from another source. After reading the page where I lifted the quote slowly and methodically, I am ready to acknowledge that my critic was right—the quote deserved more context. I take full responsibility for this. The paragraph in its entirety is quoted below:
This leads to another point that is often overlooked. Certainly in Revelation and to a lesser extent in the rest of the New Testament we must occasionally look to the Latin West for corroboration on a disputed reading. The Latin Christians who opposed Rome had a far more vital faith than that which usually characterized the Greek East. We look to them for our spiritual heritage, and they were an important channel through which God preserved His Word. This helps explain why there is a sprinkling of Latin readings in the Authorized Version. Remember also that many of the great doctrinal words in our English Bible are based on a Latin and not Greek derivative. (Moorman, Jack. When the KJV Departs from the “Majority” Text. Collingswood, NJ: Bible For Today, 2nd Edition 1988, BFT #1617, pp. 27-28)
In his article, Rodriguez had written, “Nowadays Christians get the two texts mixed up in discussions. Usually they assume that any reference to ‘the Latin’ is a reference to Jerome’s Catholic text.” I bought Moorman’s book over 20 years ago, and probably lifted the partial quote at that time when I still had much to learn on matters of Latin in translation. I have learned more since then (and still have much more to learn), and when the expanded Moorman quote in Rodriguez’ critique was published this year, I recognized right away it indeed deserved more context than I had originally given it.
A better quote on the topic by Jack Moorman (although it does not acknowledge departing from the TR) would have been the following, with what it implies with his mention of the influence of Rheims:
Tyndale no doubt fixed the general tone of the [King James] version more than any other translator, through the transmission of his influence down to the Bishops’ Bible, which formed the basis of the revision; but many improvements in interpretation were taken from the Geneva Bible, and not a few phrases and single words from that of Rheims. (Moorman, Jack. Forever Settled. Collingswood, NJ: The Dean Burgon Society, 1999, p. 248)
The basis of my original argument was Scrivener’s research. The Moorman quote was only meant as a secondary confirmation, when other quotes could have been used for secondary confirmation, such as Edward Hill’s quote provided towards the beginning of this article. My premise did not rise or fall on the basis of Moorman’s quote. It seems the tactic of directing so much attention to the inadequacy of the Moorman quote was to give the illusion of having defeated my position altogether.
Rodriguez did not provide the URL where my article, “Double Standards in the Spanish Bible Issue,” is located (he at least provided the title of my article, which would enhance the possibility of finding it). I have noticed a trend with several of my critics not fully sourcing the location of my writings, as if they were discouraging their readers from finding my writings where I speak for myself, and not through someone else’s filter.
A blatant example of omitting context
I have had an ongoing issue of others taking me out of context or attributing beliefs to me that are not accompanied by sources that back up what they are saying. I will provide an example of a complaint of my writings being quoted with both insufficient context and lacking a source by Pastor Rodriguez himself. In his article “12 Reasons Why Support for the RVG Bible Continues to Grow Despite the Complaints of Calvin George” (https://www.sociedadrvg.com/en/post/12-reasons-why-support-for-the-rvg-bible-continues-to-grow-despite-the-complaints-of-calvin-george) Emmanuel Rodriguez provides a quote attributed to me that is a partial sentence from page 114 of my first book, The Battle for the Spanish Bible in 2001. His partial quote is under point 3, preceded by “Calvin George is outraged at this statement because he believes…” Consider the following:
- He did not provide the source for the quote. Not even the name of my book, nor page number for others to be able to look up what I said in context if they even had my book.
- The sentence that immediately followed what he quoted from me started with the following word in bold all caps: “HOWEVER, by faith…”
I knew I was saying something that could be subject to misunderstanding, and that is the reason I began the very next sentence starting an explanation with the bold all caps HOWEVER… In spite of all my efforts for my explanation to be considered, my immediate explanation was not included when Rodriguez selectively quoted from that paragraph, without even providing a source. I’m not reproducing here the partial quote versus the explanation immediately following, because it is a different topic from the matter being dealt with in this article.
More proof the Latin Vulgate was open before them when doing their work
That the KJV translators had the Latin Vulgate open before them when doing their work is proven by other little-known details:
The KJV followed Beza’s 1598 closer than any other Textus Receptus edition, according to Scrivener’s research. Beza’s 1598 edition had Greek, his Latin translation, and the Latin Vulgate in parallel columns. There the differences can be seen side by side. Since Beza’s Textus Receptus 1598 edition included the Vulgate, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the KJV translators did at least occasionally consult, and even on rare occasions, follow a reading from the Vulgate.
The Vulgate was used for references in the 1611 edition:
In fact, more than half the references contained in the edition of 1611 are derived from manuscript and printed copies of the Vulgate Latin Bible, and thus present to us the fruits of the researches of mediaeval scholars and the traditional expositions of the Western Church. … The references to the Psalms direct us constantly to the wrong verse; namely, that of the Latin Vulgate from which they were first derived, not to that of the English Bible on whose pages they stand. (Scrivener, Frederick. The Authorized Edition of the English Bible. Cambridge: The University Press, 1910, pp. 117-118)
Sometimes the issue in the Spanish Bible is not the critical text
There are plenty of instances in which the RV 1909/1960 is criticized unsparingly based on disputes of translation instead of the underlying text. In fact, most criticisms from the Old Testament are of this nature. In quite a few instances, there is no admission to the reader that the squabble is over translational matters. The KJV is allowed to be defended and vindicated with “TR friendly” sources, which is fine. But the common Spanish Bible fundamentalists have used for over 60 years to build churches is somehow not allowed the same privilege. Anything that reads remotely like the critical text is to be condemned, regardless of whether it is documented that it matches “TR friendly” sources.
An analogy
Imagine if there were several groups currently among English-speaking independent Baptists who, motivated by noble ideas of textual purity, ended up revising the KJV to follow the Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text so closely as to remove any possible connections to the Latin Vulgate, the LXX, no matter how remote or insignificant, no matter what the explanations for those readings are (such as accidental correspondence, translational matters, historical precedence, etc.). And in the process of coming out with their multiple new KJV revisions, these groups fight among themselves and try to convince those who continue to use the old KJV (without the suspected Latin Vulgate/LXX readings removed) that they are using corrupt Bibles. Imagine the division and strife it would bring to the independent Baptist movement, as if we were not divided enough already! Under such a scenario, a revision of the KJV that is even closer to the Textus Receptus would not necessarily be a bad text, but the division and strife it would bring would not be worth the effort. The Great Commission focus would suffer. This is an oversimplified analogy of what is happening in the Spanish-speaking world as I’ve seen it for over 25 years. Although I’ve pointed out some things about the RVG, 1865, 1602-P, TBS Spanish revisions, overall, they are not bad texts; my main concern has been the divisive moment of the groups behind those texts, not so much the texts themselves. (The group behind the Trinitarian Bible Society has not been very divisive up to this point based on what I know, although this statement should not be interpreted as an endorsement of their new Spanish Bible).
Concluding thought
The KJV by all means, is based on the Textus Receptus and is reliable and trustworthy. We are only dealing with technicalities that likely only involves an extremely small percentage of readings in the KJV.
The matter that we have dealt with of Latin Vulgate readings in the KJV should be of no concern to 99.9% of Christians. And to the few whom it should concern, my issue is simply over a matter of consistency and avoiding double standards with foreign language Bibles regarding what is allowed to be used to defend the KJV versus foreign Bibles.
Appendix
Is the KJV the Textus Receptus by definition?
The strategy some use to reject the conclusion that –in technicalities– there are departures from the TR in the KJV, is by teaching arbitrarily that the KJV is the TR. The logic is –if the KJV is the TR– there can by definition not be any deviations from the TR! (Pretty clever, right?) This a self-serving strategy that involves rewriting history. Some will try to use a quote from Edward Hills to imply this has been taught going back many years. This is the quote they will use, normally only the part provided in bold:
The translators that produced the King James Version relied mainly, it seems, on the later editions of Beza’s Greek New Testament, especially his 4th edition (1588-9). But also they frequently consulted the editions of Erasmus and Stephanus and the Complutensian Polyglot. According to Scrivener (1884), 51 out of the 252 passages in which these sources differ sufficiently to affect the English rendering, the King James Version agrees with Beza against Stephanus 113 times, with Stephanus against Beza 59 times, and 80 times with Erasmus, or the Complutensian, or the Latin Vulgate against Beza and Stephanus. Hence the King James Version ought to be regarded not merely as a translation of the Textus Receptus but also as an independent variety of the Textus Receptus. (Hills, Edward. The King James Version Defended. Des Moines: Christian Research Press, 1984, p. 220)
The last portion in bold should not be understood to mean that he was advocating that the KJV was literally the Textus Receptus, especially when he included the key word “independent” in his key statement. Consider also Hill’s statement four pages later:
Also, as we have seen, sometimes the several editions of the Textus Receptus differ from each other and from the King James Version. (Hills, Edward. The King James Version Defended. Des Moines: Christian Research Press, 1984, p. 224)
If Hills really meant that the KJV is the TR, as some seem to portray his views, it would not have made sense for him to also affirm that there were departures from the TR in the KJV (if the KJV was the TR in his view). In other words, the TR cannot depart from itself!
Leave a Reply