Tepl mythology from Benjamin Wilkinson - part of two streams - (Erasmus to Nolan to Wilkinson)

[Steven Avery]

PBF

Tepl mythology from Benjamin Wilkinson - part of two streams
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...-benjamin-wilkinson-part-of-two-streams.2777/

Glenn Conjurske
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/glenn-conjurske.2553/#post-10405
Codex Teplensis : Waldensian or Roman Catholic? (1996)
http://straitegate.com/oldepathsfolder/op96jun.htm
see post #4 below for full text

two lines - two streams - two trees
(John Henry section using Tepl from Wilkinson)
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/two-lines-two-streams-two-trees.73/

Old Latin summary
https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/old-latin-summary.1887/
Tepl -
Maynard p. 61-65 - not in apparatus.
"No scholarly work in print has ever acknowledged the Comma in the Tepl. "

 

[Steven Avery]

The Canonicity of the Received Text or Textus Receptus Established from Reformation and Post-Reformation Baptist Confessions
Thomas Ross
https://faithsaves.net/baptist-canonicity-textus-receptus/

The Waldenses employed the Textus Receptus text type, as evidenced by the Codex Teplensis (pgs. 78-79, I Will Build My Church, Thomas Strouse). The Albigenses used the European Old Latin type of text, which is a largely TR translation (and not, as much of the African Old Latin, part of the allegedly extant “Western” family) rather than the Catholic Latin Vulgate in the Middle Ages, as evidenced by the 13th century Old Latin Codex C (cf. “Latin Version, the Old,” T. Nicol, in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (gen. ed. James Orr. Orig. pub. Eerdmans, 1939; elec. acc. Online Bible For Mac software, Ken Hamel).

Codex C - Codex Colbertinus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Colbertinus

ISBE - Nichols
https://books.google.com/books?id=rH0PAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1841
https://www.internationalstandardbible.com/L/latin-version-the-old.html
https://classic.net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Latin Version, The Old

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

Thomas Ross
“The Waldenses employed the Textus Receptus text type, as evidenced by the Codex Teplensis (pgs. 78-79, I Will Build My Church, Thomas Strouse)”

===========

https://kentbrandenburg.com/2014/07/18/are-accurate-copies-and-translations-of_18/#comment-16280


The Tepl is far, far from a TR text type.
Herman Haupt (1854-1935) studied the Tepl text.
https://books.google.com/books?id=gOEWAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA778
“the same text as the Vulgate”,

Back around 2005, on the WhichVersion Yahoogroups forum, we first started to study the Tepl. Since this is a major part of the two streams Wilkinson textual mythology, I will try to set up a special page just on the Tepl topic.

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

 

[Steven Avery]

Benjamin Wilkinson starts the mythology
https://archive.org/details/doctrin...horized-bible-vindicated-01/page/n23/mode/2up
https://www.biblepicturepathways.com/resources/Authorized Bible Vindicated.pdf

After the Review pointed out that the Tepl was basically a Vulgate Text he attempted a reply.

ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS
A REPLY TO THE "REVIEW" OF MY BOOK "OUR AUTHORIZED BIBLE VINDICATED"
B. G. Wilkinson
Section III- THE ITALA AND THE BIBLE OF THE WALDENSES
http://www.sdadefend.com/Living-Word/Answers2Objections/Answers2-3.htm

Here is one paragraph:

Why did my Reviewers say (Section I p. 16): "Waldenses had only Vulgate." I take issue with this statement, when the Spirit of Prophecy shows that the Vulgate contained many errors (Great Controversy, p.245), and also declared that the Waldensian Bible was preserved uncorrupted. (Great Controversy, p.65) The evidence is clear that the true Waldensian Bible was not the Vulgate. Of course they had access to the Vulgate as we Protestants today also have, but it was not their own proper Bible. Dr. Schaff says: "This high place the Vulgate holds even to this day in the Roman Church, where it is unwarrantably and perniciously placed on an equality with the original." Do not accuse the Waldenses of this "unwarranted" and "Pernicious" doing. (Mclintock and Strong, Art. Jerome.)

 

[Steven Avery]

Glenn Conjurske - 1996

Codex Teplensis
Waldensian or Roman Catholic?
by Glenn Conjurske​

Codex Teplensis is a manuscript of about the year 1400, containing the New Testament in German. More than a century ago there was some controversy in Germany as to whether the translation owed its origin to the Waldenses or the Roman Catholics. At the present day certain advocates of the Textus Receptus or the King James Version have taken it upon themselves to contend for its Waldensian origin, and to further contend that it was translated from the Old Latin, not from Jerome's Vulgate. By this means they bolster their theory that the true text of the New Testament was preserved by the Waldenses, through the Old Latin version, and by this means they gain, as they suppose, another witness for the genuineness of I John 5:7, which Codex Teplensis contains.

But the advocates of these theories commonly offer nothing in support of them but their own assertions. They do not trouble themselves to examine any evidence whatsoever. And why should they? These doctrines are just that: they are doctrines. They are not based upon any factual or historical evidence. The advocates of these doctrines have no need to examine the facts of history. Since they are sure that the doctrines are true, they may assume that the facts of history must be in complete accordance with the doctrines. They therefore recklessly assert that such and such things are historical facts, when in fact they know nothing about the matter. It is often their way to take refuge in the silence of history, and it would be their wisdom to do so always, for where history is silent, at any rate it cannot contradict their assertions. But so confident are they in the truth of their doctrines, that they do not hesitate to speak even when their assertions may be subjected to the light of historical fact. And when the actual evidence is examined, it is found to overturn the doctrines at every point.

Some will doubtless think the whole matter unedifying, and wonder why we should trouble ourselves at all about a manuscript 600 years old. But there are thousands of dear brethren in Christ who are swallowed up in this system of prejudice----a system which falsifies a good deal of very important doctrine, besides the facts of history. I care for them, and for the truth of God, and therefore I labor to expose this system for what it is, and to dismantle it also. In this article I shall examine a little of the actual evidence, as found in Codex Teplensis itself, concerning its supposed Waldensian origin.

The first thing which arrests our attention is that the manuscript contains the Epistle Czun Laodiern, “to the Laodiceans.” This is not separated or set off from the canonical books, as the Apocrypha is in the Protestant Bibles, but is inserted between Second Thessalonians and First Timothy, as though it were one of Paul's epistles. This, I will grant, does not absolutely prove the Teplensis to be a Roman Catholic version, but it does prove some other things. If this version was made by the Waldenses, then it is absolutely proved, beyond question or cavil, that the Waldenses were not the preservers of the true text of Scripture. They were the custodians of a corrupted New Testament, to which someone, somewhere, had added this imposture called the Epistle to the Laodiceans. Henceforth let all those who cite Codex Teplensis as proof of the Waldensian preservation of I John 5:7, contend also for the Waldensian preservation of the genuine Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans. They will have to give up, of course, their notions that the Textus Receptus and the King James Version contain the true text, for it is certain that they do not contain the epistle to the Laodiceans.

But more. Prefixed (not appended) to the New Testament, immediately following the title Di schrift des newen geczeugz (“The Writing of the New Testament”), the Codex Teplensis contains a small amount of additional matter, including quotations from Chrysostom and Augustine, and a list of Scripture portions, or pericopes, to be read on the various days of the church calendar, für das ganze Iahr, “for the whole year.” Herman Haupt contends that the fact that there are only twenty-eight saints' days in the register proves that the makers of the version were Waldensians----that is, as certain “historians” would have us believe, Baptists!! Among these saints' days are the usual festivals for Andrew, Thomas, Stephen, Saint Paul, Mary Magdalene, Matthew, Michael, and numerous others. If this is the work of Waldenses, then it is evident that the Waldenses were at least half Romanists themselves. I do not pretend to say where the truth lies, but will let the advocates for the Waldensian origin take which horn of the dilemma they please. One horn they must take. Codex Teplensis is either the work of Roman Catholics, or the Waldenses were half Romanists themselves, and in either case the testimony of Teplensis for the genuineness of I John 5:7 evaporates.

But more. In addition to these saints' days, the register contains also a number of holy days, including Ostern, that is, Easter, alle Heiligen (all Saints), Xc. abent, and Xc. tag, (Christmas eve and Christmas day), and to top all, Liechtmesse, that is, Candlemas! What Waldenses are these!

But more. Under “Christmas day” we find d. erst. messe, di 2 messe, and di 3 messe----the first mass, the second mass, and the third mass. The plain fact is, either this is a Romanist version, or the Waldenses were at least half Romanists themselves. Take which side you will, and Teplensis vanishes as a witness for the preservation of the true text by the true church.

Again, not tacked on at the end by some later hand, but prefixed to the New Testament at the beginning of the manuscript, occupying the first place in the manuscript following its title, there is a brief extract from Hugo de Victor's “II buch von den heilikeiten”----from his second book on the sacraments, that is----on confessing the sick. Hugo was a medieval monk, who lived c. 1097-1141. Now if, as the Baptist historians tell us, the Waldenses never formed part of the Church of Rome, but were separate from it from the beginning of its existence----if, that is, when Codex Teplensis was written, the Waldenses had been separate from the Church of Rome for about a thousand years, during all of which time they abhorred Rome's sacraments and refused her corrupt Bible----WHY are the Waldenses found quoting Hugo de Victor at all? And why on confessing the sick? The Baptists of more recent times, under the name of the American Bible Union, once produced their own version of the Bible, but it contained no quotation on confessing the sick, from any Roman Catholic book on the sacraments! If Baptists today were to produce a Bible version, would the first item in it be a quotation from a Catholic monk on confessing the sick? Again I insist, either the Codex Teplensis is the production of the Church of Rome, or the Waldenses were half Romanists themselves.

Once more: annexed to the end of the New Testament the manuscript contains a short treatise on, among other things, the seven sacraments. And once more I say, What Waldenses are these!

But a recent publication, in an article on “Codex Teplensis and the Waldenses,” attempts to evade the force of all of this by saying, “Again, the Codex contained the seven sacraments, but the Waldenses included religious material in their literature for the same purpose that the original 1611 KJV included the Apocryphal Books----for Scriptural analysis.” But again, this is assuming the facts, based solely upon the requirements of the doctrine. The actual facts are, we do not know WHY the producers of the King James Version included the Apocrypha, or WHY “the Waldenses” included the matter on the sacraments. Yet it is plain that the reason assigned by Dr. Strouse cannot be the true one. Neither confessing the sick, nor Christmas, nor Candlemas, nor All Saints Day, nor the Feast of Mary Magdalene have anything to do with Scriptural analysis.

The plain fact is, these statements, along with a thousand others which these folks commonly make about the facts of history, are based upon absolutely nothing of a historical nature. They are based solely upon doctrinal prejudice. Earlier in the same article Dr. Strouse says, “The aforementioned passage [I Tim. 3:15] strongly suggests that local NT church movement [sic] would be the depository and guardian, as well as the proclaimer, of the NT Scriptures.” This is the doctrine, and the historical method is given us in the next sentence: “Consequently, Baptists have believed that the NT Scriptures would be passed on through the believers of NT churches.” Yes, “WOULD BE”! Not “ARE,” or “HAVE BEEN,” but “WOULD BE”----for what these men give to us as facts of history are not derived from any historical sources whatsoever, but consist solely of such “facts” as their doctrine dictates.

This is the historical method commonly used by the advocates of these doctrines. One of the leaders of them recently told me, “There are no facts lying around out there. There is only our perception of the facts. Our perception may be either of faith, or it may be rationalistic.” This may be clever, but it is just as false as rationalism. Rationalism denies the existence of revelation, except where it is perceived to be consistent with fact. What these folks call faith denies the existence of facts, except where they are perceived to be consistent with revelation. But maugre all denials, both facts and revelation do exist, and there can be no contradiction between them. The design of such talk is of course to label as rationalistic all who do not believe these particular doctrines. When I asked this man whether he might not be mistaken concerning the doctrines, he claimed the infallible teaching of the Holy Ghost! Thus does this system divorce faith from everything concrete and objective, and place it at last in the whims, the bigotry, or the honest mistakes of every interpreter. But such faith is only conceit or superstition, and as far removed as possible from the Bible doctrine of faith. And if we remove the foundation from the individual mind, to place it in the “true churches,” we gain nothing. “True churches” have been mistaken times without number. Most of the “true churches” were post-millennial a century and a half ago, then disregarding the facts in order to maintain their notion that the world was growing better, as they now disregard them to maintain their notions concerning the text of Scripture, and founding both errors on what they call faith.

We all no doubt have our own doctrinal predilections, but to allow our doctrines to dictate what we are to regard as facts is as dangerous as it is fraudulent, for it deprives us of one of the most effectual checks against false doctrine. Yet so these men do, and do it avowedly and apparently unashamedly, and dignify the illicit process with the name of faith. Assuming the truth of the doctrine, then such and such facts “would be” true also, and they inquire no further, but affirm as facts things of which they know nothing. Indeed, this system obliges them to affirm as facts things which it would seem they must certainly know to be false. “The New Testament Scriptures would be passed on through the believers of New Testament churches.” Yes, but the King James Version was given to us by various ecclesiastics of the Church of England. To which New Testament churches did those sprinkled ecclesiastics belong? To what New Testament churches did the King's printers belong, who for generations “passed on” to us the King James Version, and revised it as they pleased in the bargain?

Such are the principles involved in this system. But I proceed to examine the translation contained in Codex Teplensis. It seldom happens that a translator of the Scriptures is so objective, so impartial, and so faithful, as to leave no trace of his own theology or prejudices upon the version which he produces. In this regard men who have no strong doctrinal prejudices are likely to produce a better version of the Scriptures than others could do. I believe this is one reason for the excellency of the King James Version. For the most part the translators had no doctrinal hobby horses to ride. Their whole study was to faithfully represent the original. Where the original was general, they had no compelling bias to make the translation specific----aside from the “old ecclesiastical terms,” which the king required them to use. Where the original was explicit, they could allow the translation to be so also.

But all translators do not possess such impartiality. Allow me to illustrate. There is a manuscript version of the Gospels in English, of about the same date as the German Codex Teplensis. This is known as the Pepysian Gospel Harmony. In most places it is a good, literal translation, but in other places it displays the translator's propensity to paraphrase, to abridge, and to expand, and some of those places very plainly indicate the Roman Catholic origin of the version. One example may suffice: “And êo ansuered Jesus hym and seide: `J seie êe forsoêe êat êou art Petre on wham j schal founde my chirche. And êou schalt haue power in heuene and in erêe & in helle.”' This is all Roman Catholic, and too plain to be mistaken.

Now when I began to study Codex Teplensis, I did so with the hope that I might find some such proof of its origin. I soon despaired of it, however, for Teplensis is generally a very literal translation from the Latin Vulgate, with none of the tendencies to paraphrase and expand which are evident in the Pepysian manuscript. I was therefore as astonished as I was elated to discover a mark so irresistible and so pervasive that it left (so I thought!) no possible doubt about the real origin of the version.

I hardly need say that all Bible versions know how to distinguish between a man and a maid. A man is one thing, and a virgin quite another, and these two are kept as distinct in a translation of the Bible as they are in the original. This is true of Codex Teplensis, as it is of all other Bible versions. A man is the German man. A maid is the German maid. As spelling was rather capricious in the days of handwritten manuscripts, the word is variously spelled in Teplensis, and we find it as mait, maid, meid, meide, and even maigt, but in every place (but one) where the word “virgin” appears in the New Testament, we find maid in Codex Teplensis. There is but one exception to this. Philip's four daughters who were virgins are called iunffrawen----where Luther, 1522, has, as usual, jungfrawen----a different word, but meaning strictly, “virgin.”

So far, then, all is well, and these two things, so distinct in their natures, are distinct in the translation also. But all does not remain well for long, for as soon as we come to the familiar “Son of man,” by which the Lord so constantly designates himself, we read not sun des menschen, or (with Luther) des menschen son, but sun der maid----“son of the VIRGIN”! And so we find it almost everywhere in Codex Teplensis:

Matt. 8:20----sun der maid.

Matt. 13:37----Sun der meide.

Mark 2:28----Sun der meid.

Mark 14:41----Sun der maid.

Luke 9:26----Sun der meid.

Yet to prove that they knew how to translate “son of man,” we find:

Mark 13:26----Sun dez menschen.

Luke 6:5----Sun dez menschen.

Luke 11:30----Sun dez menschen.

To make a long story short, in 79 places which I have examined, where “son of man” occurs in the New Testament, the Tepl manuscript reads “son of man” only seven times, all the rest having “son of the virgin.” This, if I knew nothing else about the matter, I should think rather plainly marked the translation as the work of Romanists, for it is certainly the Romanists who are always thrusting in “the virgin” where she does not belong. If the Waldenses produced this version, it appears that the Waldenses must have been very much Romanized themselves----or more likely, as was the case with Lutherans and Episcopalians after them, never quite unRomanized after they came out from the Church of Rome. For if this Teplensis is in any sense Waldensian, it certainly adds a great deal to the existing evidence of the Roman Catholic origin of the Waldenses.

And it so happens that Herman Haupt, in contending for the Waldensian origin of Codex Teplensis, actually uses the presence of sun der maid in the translation as one of his main arguments in favor of its Waldensian character. This might seem incredible, if we knew nothing else about the matter. But Haupt points out that other medieval versions which are known to be Waldensian contain the very same corruption. This I was unaware of, but I have verified it. The old Romance, or Provençal, Waldensian version invariably reads Filh de la vergena (“Son of the virgin”) instead of “Son of man”----except only in Heb. 2:6, where (of course) it has filh de l'ome, “son of man.” I cannot pretend, with my present knowledge, to say for certain whether the Teplensis is Waldensian or Roman Catholic, but I can say without the least fear of contradiction that if the translation is indeed the work of the Waldenses, then the Waldenses were not the preservers of the true text of Scripture, but the corrupters of it. This sun der maid is no accident, but a deliberate corruption. The makers of Codex Teplensis either translated from corrupt manuscripts, or they deliberately corrupted the translation. I really suppose it must be the latter, for I am not aware of any manuscripts, Greek or Latin, which read “Son of the virgin.” In either case the makers of this version were certainly not the preservers of the true text of Scripture. They were either the “preservers” of a corrupt text, or they corrupted the text themselves. Again, you may take which horn of the dilemma you please. Either the Waldenses had nothing to do with Codex Teplensis, or the Waldenses were the corrupters of the text of Scripture. In either case the supposed witness of Codex Teplensis for the preservation of the true text by the true church absolutely vanishes, and its testimony in favor of I John 5:7 is absolutely nullified.

And with this I might have done, yet to prevent any possible misconception on the part of the ignorant, I must notice one further statement in the article by Thomas Strouse. He says, “In subsequent centuries, Codex Teplensis was gradually modified by Romanists for the purpose of harmonizing it with the Vulgate and Romish dogma.” This statement as it stands is certainly false. Codex Teplensis is a fourteenth-century manuscript, which has never been modified at all, but exists today just as it did in the fourteenth century, and just as it was written by the scribes who wrote it. The Codex has not been altered at all.

But the Codex must be distinguished from the version which it contains. When the German Bible was first printed, (the Mentel Bible, in 1466), the version printed was the same as that which is contained in Codex Teplensis. This version was reprinted numerous times in Germany before the beginning of the Protestant Reformation. It is granted that the printers of at least most of those editions were Romanists, and it is also a certainty that in the printed editions the text was gradually revised, but this process of revision of course left Codex Teplensis itself absolutely untouched----as much as the subsequent revisions of the King James Version left the copies which were printed in 1611 untouched. The version was modified, but the previously existing copies of it were not. Now Codex Teplensis is a manuscript copy, and in spite of the subsequent revisions of the version in the printed copies, the text and accompanying matter of the Codex Teplensis itself remain just what they were when the manuscript was written, and all of the remarks which I have written above are based upon the contents of the manuscript, as it is, was, and always has been.

But apply Dr. Strouse's statement to the subsequent printings of the version contained in it, rather than to Codex Teplensis itself, and still it is wrong. “Harmonizing it with the Vulgate and Romish dogma,” he says, as though it were possible to do both. This is mere prejudice. Let it be understood that the Latin Vulgate----though imperfect, as is every human translation----is yet a Bible, and Romish dogma is not supported by conforming to the Vulgate, but by departing from it. It was the Latin Vulgate which Wycliffe translated into English, and it was Wycliffe's translation of the Vulgate which was banned by the Romanists. It was by means of the Latin Vulgate that Wycliffe exposed the corruptions of Rome.

Haupt addresses the character of the subsequent revision of the Teplensis version in the following language: “One is compelled by the radical manner of that revision to the supposition that, to the reviser, it had to do with something more than the preparation of a readable Bible text. The brutal ejection from the German Bible version of hundreds of true pearls of the medieval German word treasury, which in good part could be replaced only by inappropriate or Latin-borrowed expressions, seems to us to prove rather plainly that the Catholic revision thereby aimed at the same time to divest the Waldenses' German Bible work of its popular character, and so to eliminate the last trace of its non-catholic origin.” But even supposing that we grant all of this, this is yet a long way from conforming the version to Romish dogma. I call upon those who assert this to give us some plain examples by which to prove it. The fact is, there is almost nothing in the Vulgate which, fairly interpreted, can be construed to lend any support to Romish dogma. We suppose the Latin sacramentum (for the Greek v , “secret”) might do so indeed, but what are the facts concerning sacramentum? Observe:

1.In some of the places where the Vulgate has it, so has the Old Latin. Such is the case in Eph. 3:9, Rev. 1:20, and probably others. And since the theory is that the Waldenses used the pure Old Latin rather than the corrupt Vulgate, surely that theory has nothing to stand on here.

2.In a number of places where sacramentum appears in the Vulgate, there is no change between the Codex Teplensis and the subsequent printed editions of the version. Teplensis itself reads heilikeit, that is, “sacrament.” This is the case in Eph. 1:9, 3:3, 3:9,5:32, and I Tim. 3:16.

3.Finally, in Rev. 17:7 Codex Teplensis reads taugen (“secret,” that is), which is altered in the printed editions to sacrament. How is this to be explained? This is no doubt the result of using differing texts of the Vulgate, the Teplensis being based upon the Latin mysterium, and the printed editions upon sacramentum. This variation actually exists in the Vulgate mss. at Rev. 17:7. And it is a certain fact that the very same alteration occurs in Rev. 1:20 in the Wycliffe Bible, the early version reading “mysterie,” and the revision, “sacrament.” Will anyone accuse the Wycliffites of revising their Bible to conform it to Romish dogma?

I give one more example: the false rendering “Son of the virgin,” which is so pervasive in the manuscript, was gradually corrected in the printed editions, being conformed to the reading of the Vulgate----“Son of man.” Whether this served to conform the version to Romish dogma, and eliminate the traces of Waldensianism, I leave my readers to judge.

Now in the light of the plain facts presented in this article, we would expect those who have contended for the Waldensian origin of the Teplensis to quickly bolt from their position, and contend rather for its Roman Catholic origin. But such a flight will scarcely help them, while the old Provençal Waldensian version corrupts Filh de l'ome into Filh de la vergena no less than eighty-two times. What will they do with this fact?

To conclude, those who hold the doctrines of the preservation of the true text of Scripture (or the succession of the true churches of God) among the Waldenses would do better to abandon Codex Teplensis. It does not help their cause in the least, but damages it immeasurably. They would do much better to prove Teplensis to be a Roman Catholic work----though that would not be easy. In either case, whether Catholic or Waldensian, Teplensis vanishes as a witness for the true text----vanishes as a witness for the preservation of the true church----and vanishes in particular as a witness for I John 5:7. It contains I John 5:7, no doubt, but this proves only that the verse was in the Latin Vulgate, which we knew already. As for those who wish to cite Codex Teplensis as a witness for the true text in I John 5:7, let them also contend for “son of the virgin” and the Epistle to the Laodiceans.

Beyond all of this, it is an indubitable fact that the version contained in Codex Teplensis closely follows the Latin Vulgate, and differs in a myriad of places from the Textus Receptus and the King James Version, but the proof of that I must reserve for another article.​

 

[Steven Avery]

Jesse Boyd follows the mythology

Jesse Boyd
"And These Three Are One" A Case For the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7-8
https://www.ovrlnd.com/Bible/casefor1john57.html

The Old Latin translations of the New Testament are very important in establishing the authenticity of I John 5:7-8, for Latin was the major language up through the Middle Ages.The Old Latin is not the same as the Latin of Jerome's Vulgate, which by the way, does include the Comma.The Old Latin predates the Vulgate text and is found well into the Middle Ages.Did the Old Latin consistently contain the Johannine Comma?For the answer to this question, one must turn to the Tepl Codex, a fourteenth century manuscript written in Middle High German.This Codex is significant because "the Tepl Codex actually predates a pre-Jerome text from a non-Vulgate MS, w."[61]Metzger acknowledges that w contains "Old Latin readings in Acts and the Catholic Epistles."[62]It comes as no surprise that the Tepl contains the Comma exactly as it is found in the Textus Receptus.As Maynard argues, its text "has a remarkable longevity into the 15th century.This indicates that German MSS ought not to be dismissed as mere copies of Latin Vulgate MSS."[63] According to Elliot, the Tepl comes from the Old Latin and has its affinity with w (an Old Latin manuscript from the 15th century).[64]Latin manuscript w is dated to the 15th century while the Tepl is dated to the 14th.Had this been reversed, the German Tepl would be regarded with much less value.But, as it is, this Codex actually predates a pre-Jerome Latin text (w).The Tepl and the Old Lain manuscripts together "provide pre-Reformation support for non-majority readings of the Authorized Version."[65]The Tepl not only contains I John 5:7-8 as it is found in the Textus Receptus, but Acts 8:37; 9:5-6; and 15:34, all of which are omitted in modern English versions.

The Old Latin from which the Tepl descended is also found in the manuscripts of the Waldensians.History teaches that the Waldensians were those Christians who lived in the Vaudois valley in northern Italy.The Waldensian Church has been dated back to about A.D. 120.Their Old Itala Bible was translated in the early second century.The Waldensians were severely persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church between the fourth and thirteenth centuries.As Jack Moorman argues, "Research into the text and history of the Waldensian Bible has shown that it is a literal descendant of the Old Itala.In other words, the Itala has come down to us in Waldensian form, and firmly supports the Traditional Text."[66]Gail Riplinger, goes on to promulgate, "It [the Waldensian Bible] was a translation of the true text into the rather rude Low Latin of the second century . . . the Bible of the Waldensians was used to carry the true text throughout Europe."[67]

 

[Steven Avery]

Various Herman Haupt pages.

Tim Dunkin.

 

[Steven Avery]

A Review of “Our Authorized Bible Vindicated,” by B. G. Wilkinson (1931)
Warren Eugene Howell (1869-1943)
https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/9...PY-0ho6OG9pZkwnANcTL0F2q5Ee816Mgqp4eBaRt_PY#4

The Argument Upon the “Itala”
https://text.egwwritings.org/read/944.73

One of the arguments used by the author to establish his claim of transmission of the pure apostolic text by the early Christians of northern Italy is this:RABV 12.3

“It is held that the pre-Waldensian Christians of northern Italy could not have had doctrines purer than Rome unless their Bible was purer than Rome’s; that is, was not of Rome’s falsified manuscripts.”—Page 31.RABV 12.4

The utter unsoundness of this argument will readily appear when we apply it to our own movement. According to this view, it would be impossible for us to hold any purer view concerning Christian doctrine than that which is held by the other churches unless we had a purer Bible than they. But we use identically the same Bibles, whether King James or Revised. And it is a great satisfaction to take the very Bibles in the hands of the other denominations and from them establish our distinctive doctrines. Not only so, but the very prophecies which we use to establish our claims concerning the apostasy of the Roman Catholic Church are found in the officially authorized Catholic text. The contention utterly collapses in the light of Luther’s experience, and of every marked spiritual advance or reform through the centuries.RABV 12.5

The basis of the argument that the pre-Waldensian Christians had a purer Bible in their possession is the repeated contention that their text known as the Italic or Itala, was transmitted in a pure from direct from Palestine to them. (Pages 23-43.) This assertion seems to make necessary the submission of documentary evidence concerning this manuscript and its origin, even though it be a bit technical.RABV 13.1

The uncertainty in his own contention is clearly recognized even by Mr. Nolan in these words: “Notwithstanding the labors of M. M. Bianchini and Sabatier, much remains to be done with this version [the Itala] the history of which is so little known that the very propriety of its name has been questioned.”—Preface, p. xvii.RABV 13.2

The decisive consideration is whether the Itala was transmitted direct from Palestine, or whether it originated in north Africa.RABV 13.3

Let us note the following testimony:RABV 14.1

Latin Version Traced to Africa :—“It is then to Africa that we must look for the first traces of the Latin ‘Peshito’, the ‘simple’ version of the West.”—“A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament During the First Four Centuries,” by B. F. Westcott, p. 272.RABV 14.2

The same writer then deals with the question of the various Latin versions thus:RABV 14.3

No Independent Latin Versions :—“Even if it be proved that new Latin versions, which agree more or less exactly with the African version, were made in Italy, Spain and Gaul, as the congregations of Latin Christians increased in number and importance; that fact proves nothing against the existence of an African original. For if we call these various versions ‘new,’ we must limit the force of the word to a fresh revision and not to an independent translation of the whole. There is not the slightest trace of the existence of independent Latin versions; and the statements of Augustine are fully satisfied by supposing a series of ecclesiastical recensions [revisions] of one fundamental text which were in turn reproduced with variations and corrections in private MSS. In this way there might well be said to be ‘an infinite variety of Latin interpreters’ while a particular recension [revision] like the ‘Itala’ could be selected for general commendation.”— Ibid, pp. 277, 278. (Italics ours.)RABV 14.4

The learned Dr. Swete adds the results of his exhaustive study and research in this testimony:RABV 14.5

Daughter-Version of the Septuagint :—“To the church of north Africa, on the other hand, the Greek Bible was a sealed book; for Carthage, colonized from Rome before the capital had been flooded by Greek residents, retained the Latin tongue as the language of common life. It was at Carthage, probably, that the earliest daughter-version of the Septuagint, the Old Latin Bible, first saw the light; certainly it is there that the oldest form of the Old Latin Bible first meets us in the writings of Cyprian.”—” An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek,” by Henry Barclay Swete, D. D., p. 88.RABV 14.6

The following quotation from an authority favorably quoted by the author, indicates the close relationship between the Italian family of texts and Jerome’s Vulgate, an attempt made in the fourth century to establish an authorized Latin text:RABV 14.7

Itala a Stepping Stone to Vulgate :—“The Italian family of Bible MSS. presents us with a type of text mainly European, but doubly revised; first in its renderings ‘to give the Latinity a smoother and more customary aspect,’ and secondly in its underlying text, which has been largely corrected from the Greek; in both these points the Italian MSS. are a sort of stepping stone between the European MSS. and Jerome’s Vulgate; and as many of the Biblical quotations in Augustine’s works agree closely with them, it is distinctly probable that it was this revision which he praised as the Itala.”—” A plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament,” Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, Vol. II, pp. 55, 56.RABV 15.1

Again on page 35, the author uses a quotation from “The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,” dealing with the Itala translation, but neglects to take cognizance of an append footnote which says, “The translation here referred to is the Vetus Latina as revised by the church of northern Italy in the fourth century, prior to the final recension of Jerome, commonly called the Vulgate.” (” The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,” edited by Philip Schaff, Vol. II, on Christian Doctrine, Book II, chapter 15.) This note makes it clear that the Itala was not an independent text transmitted directly from Palestine, but was a revision of the Old Latin text originating in north Africa and leading up to the Vulgate.RABV 15.2

Further evidence from Dr. Gregory, as to the origin of the Itala translation is found in the following extract:RABV 15.3

Itala Derived From Africa :—“The Old Latin translation arose probably in North Africa. Rome and Southern Italy in Christian circles were too thoroughly Greek at first to need a Latin text. It appears to have been used, for example, by the translator of Irenaeus.”—” Canon and Text of the New Testament,” Casper Rene Gregory, p. 156.RABV 15.4

Additional information, together with a suggestion that the Italic may be identical with the Vulgate of Jerome, is next presented:RABV 16.1

Itala Be Identical With Vulgate:—“When we come down to the 4th cent. we find in Western Europe, and esp. in North Italy, a second type of text, which is designated. European, the precise relation of which to the African has not been clearly ascertained. Is this an independent text which has arisen on the soil of Italy, or is it a text derived by alteration and revision of the African as it traveled northward and westward? ... A technical listing of various MSS. with the official designation follows.... Still later, Professor Hort says from the middle of the 4th cent., a third type, called Italic from its more restricted range, is found. It is represented by Codex Brixianus (f) of the 6th cent., now at Brescia, and Codex Monacensis (q) of the 7th cent., at Munich This text is probably a modified form of the European, produced by revision which has brought it more into accord with the Greek, and has given it a smoother Let in aspect. The group has received this name because the text found in many of Augustine’s writings is the same, and as he expressed a preference for the Itala, the group was designated accordingly. Recent investigation tends to show that we must be careful how we use Augustine as an Old Latin authority, and that the Itala may be, not a pre-Vulgate text, but rather Jerome’s Vulgate. This, however, is still uncertain.”—T. Nichol, in “The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, James Orr. M.A., D.D., General Editor, Vol. III, pp. 1842-1843.RABV 16.2

Another authority, writing on the Scriptures of the Waldenses, states:RABV 16.3

Waldenses Had Only Vulgate :—“The Waldenses of the middle ages were acquainted and could be acquainted with the Vulgate only, as it was generally received in their time; it is even very doubtful whether they had a complete version of it. But of the four supposed Waldensian manuscripts of the New Testament, there are two which also contain Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus.”—History of the Canon of the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Church,” Edward Reuss, Professor in the University of Strassburg, p. 264.RABV 16.4

The claim of the author is that the Waldenses had a pure text of the Bible, transmitted direct to them from Palestine, and that this text was the foundation of the Textus Receptus. But the testimony here submitted shows that the Waldensian Bible was in all likelihood a revision of the Old Latin text originating in northern Africa, and that it was doubtless the last revision of the Old Latin text previous to, and leading up to, the Vulgate edited by Jerome, And some even believe that it was identical with the Vulgate, and. that the Bible of the Waldenses was the Vulgate itself. Therefore the effort to establish the claim that the Waldensian Church possessed manuscripts directly descended from the apostolic originals, collapses. Neither Mr. Nolan in 1815, nor the author of the book under review in 1930, is able to convince any textual critic that this claim is a sound one. But when this claim is overthrown the very foundation of the book under review is removed, and the conclusions which are based upon it are rendered untenable.RABV 16.5

 

[Steven Avery]

Facebook - Textus Receptus Academy
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467...828403363026&reply_comment_id=576233576555842

SA
"A couple of contras can get some credit ... Doug Kutilek and Rick Norris"

Actually, the first refutation of Wilkinson on two streams came from an Adventist:

Warren Eugene Howell 1869-1943
https://adventistdigitallibrary.org...mePart_ms:Howell,\ Warren\ Eugene\ 1869\-1943

Howell was the head of a committee that wrote the response. They wrote a review with pluses and minuses, but did catch the Itala misue:

A Review of “Our Authorized Bible Vindicated,” by B. G. Wilkinson (1930)
https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/944.4#4

The Argument Upon the “Itala" p. 12-16
https://text.egwwritings.org/public...okCode=RABV&lang=en&section=all&pagenumber=12
https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/944.73#73

===========

The following quotation from an authority favorably quoted by the author, indicates the close relationship between the Italian family of texts and Jerome’s Vulgate, an attempt made in the fourth century to establish an authorized Latin text:

Itala a Stepping Stone to Vulgate :—“The Italian family of Bible MSS. presents us with a type of text mainly European, but doubly revised; first in its renderings ‘to give the Latinity a smoother and more customary aspect,’ and secondly in its underlying text, which has been largely corrected from the Greek; in both these points the Italian MSS. are a sort of stepping stone between the European MSS. and Jerome’s Vulgate; and as many of the Biblical quotations in Augustine’s works agree closely with them, it is distinctly probable that it was this revision which he praised as the Itala.”—” A plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament,” Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, Vol. II, pp. 55, 56.

...

The claim of the author is that the Waldenses had a pure text of the Bible, transmitted direct to them from Palestine, and that this text was the foundation of the Textus Receptus. But the testimony here submitted shows that the Waldensian Bible was in all likelihood a revision of the Old Latin text originating in northern Africa, and that it was doubtless the last revision of the Old Latin text previous to, and leading up to, the Vulgate edited by Jerome, And some even believe that it was identical with the Vulgate, and. that the Bible of the Waldenses was the Vulgate itself. Therefore the effort to establish the claim that the Waldensian Church possessed manuscripts directly descended from the apostolic originals, collapses. Neither Mr. Nolan in 1815, nor the author of the book under review in 1930, is able to convince any textual critic that this claim is a sound one.

===========

Wilkinson did write a response to this review.

"A Reply to the "Review" of My Book

Answers to Objections TOC

A REPLY TO THE "REVIEW" OF MY BOOK
"OUR AUTHORIZED BIBLE VINDICATED"
B. G. Wilkinson
Section III- THE ITALA AND THE BIBLE OF THE WALDENSES
http://www.sdadefend.com/Living-Word/Answers2Objections/Answers2-3.htm

But the Old Latin still persisted after the Vulgate was made even until the 12th and 13th centuries. So all quotations about the Old Latin being a stepping stone to the Vulgate are beside the point.... the Spirit of Prophecy shows that the Vulgate contained many errors (Great Controversy, p.245), and also declared that the Waldensian Bible was preserved uncorrupted. (Great Controversy, p.65) .. the Vulgate, which swarmed with errors (D'Aubigue's "History of the Reformation")

===========

Wilkinson goes on and on, and never gives any variants from any manuscripts to support the position. Not one.

 

[Steven Avery]

Chapter 2
p. 17
Charm

God in His wisdom had invested these Latin versions by His Providence with a
charm that outweighed the learned artificiality of Jerome’s Vulgate. This is why they
persisted through the centuries. A characteristic often overlooked in considering versions,
and one that cannot be too greatly emphasized, needs to be pointed out in comparing the
Latin Bible of the Waldenses, of the Gauls, and of the Celts with the later Vulgate. To
bring before you the unusual charm of those Latin Bibles, I quote from the Forum of
June, 1887:

Circular reasoning

this center, to the tribes of northern Europe. When Rome awoke to the necessity of
sending out missionaries to extend her power, she found Great Britain and northern
Europe already professing a Christianity whose origin could be traced back through Iona
to Asia Minor. About 600 A.D. Rome sent missionaries to England and to Germany, to
bring these simple Bible Christians under her dominion, as much as to subdue the pagans.
D’Aubigne has furnished us this picture of Iona and her missions:
“D’Aubigne says that Columba esteemed the cross of Christ higher than the royal
blood which flowed in his veins, and that precious manuscripts were brought to Iona,
where a theological school was founded and the Word was studied. ‘Erelong a missionary
spirit breathed over this ocean rock, so justly named “the light of the Western world.”’
British missionaries carried the light of the gospel to the Netherlands, France,
Switzerland, Germany, yea, even into Italy, and did more for the conversion of central
Europe than the half-enslaved Roman Church.” f23
EARLY FRANCE — WHICH BIBLE?
In southern France, when in 177 A.D. the Gallic Christians were frightfully
massacred by the heathen, a record of their suffering was drawn up by the survivors and
sent, not to the Pope of Rome, but to their brethren in Asia Minor. f24 Milman claims that
the French received their Christianity from Asia Minor.
These apostolic Christians in southern France were undoubtedly those who gave
effective help in carrying the Gospel to Great Britain.f25 And as we have seen above, there
was a long and bitter struggle between the Bible of the British Christians and the Bible
which was brought later to England by the missionaries of Rome. And as there were
really only two Bibles, — the official version of Rome, and the Received Text, — we
may safely conclude that the Gallic (or French) Bible, as well as the Celtic (or British),
were the Received Text. Neander claims, as follows, that the first Christianity in England,
came not from Rome, but from Asia Minor, probably through France

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

There are many earlier historians who agree with this view.f28 It is held that the
pre-Waldensian Christians of northern Italy could not have had doctrines purer than
Rome unless their Bible was purer than Rome’s; that is, was not of Rome’s falsified
manuscripts.f29

Doctrine - Bible - Benjamin G Wilkinson - Our Authorized Bible Vindicated 01 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Doctrine - Bible - Benjamin G Wilkinson - Our Authorized Bible Vindicated 01

archive.org

In the fourth century, Helvidius, a great scholar of northern Italy, accused Jerome,
whom the Pope had empowered to form a Bible in Latin for Catholicism, with using
corrupt Greek manuscripts. f32 How could Helvidius have accused Jerome of employing
corrupt Greek MSS. If Helvidius had not had the pure Greek manuscripts? And so
learned and so powerful in writing and teaching was Jovinian, the pupil of Helvidius, that
it demanded three of Rome’s most famous fathers — Augustine, Jerome, and Ambrose
— to unite in opposing Jovinian’s influence. Even then, it needed the condemnation of
the Pope and the banishment of the Emperor to prevail. But Jovinian’s followers lived on
and made the way easier for Luther

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

The Latin Bible, the Italic, was translated from the Greek not later
than 157 A.D. f40 We

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

This proves that Waldensian Versions existed in
1300 and 1400. It was the Vulgate, Rome’s corrupt Scriptures against the Received Text
— the New Testament of the apostles, of the Waldenses, and of the Reformers.


It is recognized that the Itala was translated from the Received Text (Syrian, Hort
calls it) ; that the Vulgate is the Itala with the readings of the Received Text removed.f44

 

[Steven Avery]

The Erasmus quote used by Nolan and then that was confused by Wilkinson:

An inquiry into the integrity of the Greek vulgate, or received text of the New Testament

books.google.com

Chapter 5 – The Greek Vulgate - American Presbyterian Church

With respect to Manuscripts, it is indisputable that he was acquainted with every variety which is known to us, having distributed them into two principal classes, one of which corresponds with the Complutensian edition, the other with the Vatican manuscript. *** And he has specified the positive grounds on which he received the one arid rejected the other. The former was in possession of the Greek Church, the latter in that of the Latin. Judging from the internal evidence, he had as good reason to conclude the Eastern Church had not corrupted their received text, as he had grounds to suspect the Rhodians, from whom the Western Church derived their manuscripts, had accommodated then to the Latin Vulgate. One short insinuation which he has thrown out, sufficiently proves, that his objections to these manuscripts lay more deep, and they do immortal credit to his sagacity. In the age in which the Vulgate was formed the Church, he was aware, was infested with Origenists and Arians; an affinity between any manuscript and that version, consequently conveyed some suspicion that its text was corrupted. So little dependence was he inclined to place upon the authority of Origen, who is the pillar and ground of the Corrected edition.

In those two instances we have exemplars of the two principal Classes into which the Greek MSS. have been divided. That the MS. of the Pope's library, which is written in the large or uncial letter, and which agrees with the Latin Vulgate, can be no other than the celebrated Vatican MS. will not admit of a doubt, after turning to n. 33. supr. p. 61. This MS. was examined for Erasmus by Paulus Bombasius, and has accordingly had some influence on his edition; vid. Erasm. Apolog. ad. Jac. Stunic. Op. Tom. IX. p. 353. a. ed 1706. Birch. Prolegomm. in Nov. Test. p. xxii, The MS. which was sent by P. Leo X. to Cardinal Ximenes, as the exemplar of the Complutensian New Testament, is conceived to have been lost with the other MSS. used in compiling that edition. The character of the text of this MS. is not only ascertainable from the Complutensian edition, but from a MS. preserved in the Bodleian library, (Laud. 2. noted by M. Griesbach, Cod. 51.) which harmonizes with it in an extraordinary manner: vid. Mill. Prolegomm. in Nov. Test. nn. 1092. 1437. As the Vatican MS. is of the Palestine text, and the Complutensian Codex of the Byzantine; Erasmus in being acquainted with those texts seems to have possessed ample materials for revising the New Testament.



Ironically, this Latin from Erasmus is used by Newton in Two Notable Corruptions.

In another context, we have a translation from An-Ting Yi

From Erasmus to Maius (2023)
Yi, An-Ting

https://research.vu.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/258149851/from+erasmus+to+maius+-+thesis+-+64fe0a372677e.pdf

The Erasmus text is here in German and Latin
https://books.google.com/books?id=EyQUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA64

 

[Steven Avery]

Everybody jumps on the Erasmus quote for many reasons, the key issue is possible Latinization of Vaticanus, not two classes of manuscripts from antiquity.

Michaelis
https://books.google.com/books?id=Y1gHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA169

Horne and Davidson (1856)
https://books.google.com/books?id=HYFJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA109

 

[BeYeSeparate]

Chapter 2
p. 17
Charm

God in His wisdom had invested these Latin versions by His Providence with a
charm that outweighed the learned artificiality of Jerome’s Vulgate. This is why they
persisted through the centuries. A characteristic often overlooked in considering versions,
and one that cannot be too greatly emphasized, needs to be pointed out in comparing the
Latin Bible of the Waldenses, of the Gauls, and of the Celts with the later Vulgate. To
bring before you the unusual charm of those Latin Bibles, I quote from the Forum of
June, 1887:

Circular reasoning

this center, to the tribes of northern Europe. When Rome awoke to the necessity of
sending out missionaries to extend her power, she found Great Britain and northern
Europe already professing a Christianity whose origin could be traced back through Iona
to Asia Minor. About 600 A.D. Rome sent missionaries to England and to Germany, to
bring these simple Bible Christians under her dominion, as much as to subdue the pagans.
D’Aubigne has furnished us this picture of Iona and her missions:
“D’Aubigne says that Columba esteemed the cross of Christ higher than the royal
blood which flowed in his veins, and that precious manuscripts were brought to Iona,
where a theological school was founded and the Word was studied. ‘Erelong a missionary
spirit breathed over this ocean rock, so justly named “the light of the Western world.”’
British missionaries carried the light of the gospel to the Netherlands, France,
Switzerland, Germany, yea, even into Italy, and did more for the conversion of central
Europe than the half-enslaved Roman Church.” f23
EARLY FRANCE — WHICH BIBLE?
In southern France, when in 177 A.D. the Gallic Christians were frightfully
massacred by the heathen, a record of their suffering was drawn up by the survivors and
sent, not to the Pope of Rome, but to their brethren in Asia Minor. f24 Milman claims that
the French received their Christianity from Asia Minor.
These apostolic Christians in southern France were undoubtedly those who gave
effective help in carrying the Gospel to Great Britain.f25 And as we have seen above, there
was a long and bitter struggle between the Bible of the British Christians and the Bible
which was brought later to England by the missionaries of Rome. And as there were
really only two Bibles, — the official version of Rome, and the Received Text, — we
may safely conclude that the Gallic (or French) Bible, as well as the Celtic (or British),
were the Received Text. Neander claims, as follows, that the first Christianity in England,
came not from Rome, but from Asia Minor, probably through France

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

There are many earlier historians who agree with this view.f28 It is held that the
pre-Waldensian Christians of northern Italy could not have had doctrines purer than
Rome unless their Bible was purer than Rome’s; that is, was not of Rome’s falsified
manuscripts.f29

Doctrine - Bible - Benjamin G Wilkinson - Our Authorized Bible Vindicated 01 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Doctrine - Bible - Benjamin G Wilkinson - Our Authorized Bible Vindicated 01

archive.org

In the fourth century, Helvidius, a great scholar of northern Italy, accused Jerome,
whom the Pope had empowered to form a Bible in Latin for Catholicism, with using
corrupt Greek manuscripts. f32 How could Helvidius have accused Jerome of employing
corrupt Greek MSS. If Helvidius had not had the pure Greek manuscripts? And so
learned and so powerful in writing and teaching was Jovinian, the pupil of Helvidius, that
it demanded three of Rome’s most famous fathers — Augustine, Jerome, and Ambrose
— to unite in opposing Jovinian’s influence. Even then, it needed the condemnation of
the Pope and the banishment of the Emperor to prevail. But Jovinian’s followers lived on
and made the way easier for Luther

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

The Latin Bible, the Italic, was translated from the Greek not later
than 157 A.D. f40 We

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

This proves that Waldensian Versions existed in
1300 and 1400. It was the Vulgate, Rome’s corrupt Scriptures against the Received Text
— the New Testament of the apostles, of the Waldenses, and of the Reformers.


It is recognized that the Itala was translated from the Received Text (Syrian, Hort
calls it) ; that the Vulgate is the Itala with the readings of the Received Text removed.f44

View attachment 3544

Transcription error (I know not yours)

 

[Steven Avery]

Honestly, nothing Wilkinson says on this topic can be trusted, unless you have gone through the primary source material.

An example:
"In the fourth century, Helvidius, a great scholar of northern Italy, accused Jerome, whom the Pope had empowered to form a Bible in Latin for Catholicism, with using corrupt Greek manuscripts. f32 How could Helvidius have accused Jerome of employing corrupt Greek MSS. If Helvidius had not had the pure Greek manuscripts?"

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

The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary.
Against Helvidius
by Jerome
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.v.html

And yet you with marvellous effrontery contend that the reading of the Greek manuscripts is corrupt, although it is that which nearly all the Greek writers have left us in their books, and not only so, but several of the Latin writers have taken the words the same way. ... Seeing that you have been foolish enough to persuade yourself that the Greek manuscripts are corrupt, you will perhaps plead the diversity of readings.

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

I have a section on this Helvidius question.

two lines - two streams - two trees ( from Benjamin Wilkinson )
Helvidius the textual hero of Wilkinson and many AV defenders
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...wo-trees-from-benjamin-wilkinson.73/post-1601

 

[BeYeSeparate]

May seem random, but I think it is connected. Isn't the original Olivetan Bible a translation of the Waldensian Romaunt Bible?

 

[Steven Avery]

As far as I have seen, its a theory without substance.

FRENCH PROTESTANT BIBLE 1535 FIRST EDITION DISPLAY LEAF

Product Page | biblicalarchives

www.biblicalarchives.com

Good info.

Olivétan (1506-1538)

Olivétan (1506-1538)

Olivétan is well-known for his French translation of the Bible, referred to as Olivétan’s Bible. It was the first Bible ever to be translated into French from the original Hebrew and Greek texts. It is also known as “the martyrs’ Bible”.

museeprotestant.org

Wikipedia has

Bible translations into French - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

1535, Bible d'Olivétan: first translation made from the original Hebrew and Greek It introduced the expression l'Éternel (the Eternal) to render the Tetragrammaton. Pierre Robert, called Olivétan, who was probably a cousin of John Calvin, wrote the Latin preface. The translation is accompanied by numerous scholarly notes. The New Testament follows the Textus Receptus.

Also

Pierre Robert Olivétan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Pierre Robert Olivetan/Olivétan (c. 1506 – 1538), a Waldensian by faith[citation needed], was the first translator of the Bible into the French language starting from the Hebrew and Greek texts. He was a cousin of John Calvin, who wrote a Latin preface for the translation,[1] often called the Olivetan Bible [fr].

His work was based on that of his teacher Jacques Lefèvre d'Etaples.[2] It was published in 1535 as La Bible Qui est toute la Saincte scripture[3] at Neuchâtel. This translation has been considered the first French Protestant Bible.[4]

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

A rarity, decent from the JWs

Olivétan—“The Humble Little Translator” of the French Bible

https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/wp20110901/Oliv%C3%A9tan-The-Humble-Little-Translator-of-the-French-Bible/

Farel knew just such a man. His name was Pierre Robert, but he was known as Olivétan, * a young teacher born in the Picardy region of northern France. Olivétan, a cousin of John Calvin, was an early Reformer and a trustworthy man. He also spent several years in Strasbourg diligently studying Bible languages.

Like Farel and many others, Olivétan had taken refuge in Switzerland. His friends begged him to accept the translation project. After refusing several times, he finally accepted the commission to translate the Bible “according to the Hebrew and Greek languages into French.” At the same time, the Waldenses put up 500 of the 800 gold crowns—a fortune!—needed to finance a printery.

...

Olivétan based his rendering of what is commonly called the New Testament on the French text of Lefèvre d’Étaples, although the Greek text established by the Dutch scholar Erasmus was taken into account on many occasions. Olivétan’s choice of vocabulary was often aimed at loosening the grip of Catholicism. For example, he preferred “overseer” to “bishop,” “secret” to “mystery,” and “congregation” to “church.”

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

About the Preface
Puritanboard

1535 French Olivetan Bible

The 1535 (French) Olivetan Bible is available online in part here: Links and Downloads Manager - Translations & Manuscripts - 1535 French Olivetan Bible - The PuritanBoard John Calvin's Preface is available (in English) online here: Links and Downloads Manager - Translations &...

www.puritanboard.com

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

Jaroslav Pelikan

The Reformation of the Bible

It is equally true that the Reformation was inspired and defined by the Bible and that the Bible was reshaped by the intellectual, political, and cultural forces of the Reformation. In this book, a distinguished scholar--whose contributions to the field of religious studies have won him wide...

books.google.com

 

[BeYeSeparate]

Regarding the Waldensian Bible supposedly being only the Vulgate, the Rheims preface says: "... in the days of Charles V. (1338–1380) the French king, was it [the Latin Vulgate] put forth faithfully in French, the sooner to shake out of the deceived people's hands, the false heretical translations of a sect called Waldenses." (sec. 4.)

"It [Jerome's Latin-Vulgate] was translated into...French in the time of king Charles the fift (1338–1380); especially because the waldensian heretikes had corruptly translated it, to maintaine their errors." (1609 Doway Bible, vol. 1, "To the English Reader," p.8. Laurence Kellam: Doway, France.)

 

[Steven Avery]

That is more about the translation than textual differences. e.g. It might not use the Latin word for penance, and prefer something more to repentance. It would be good, though, to have specifics.

Whatever the translation elements, the text is generally known to be from a Vulgate source, and if there are Old Latin contributions different than the Vulgate, they have never been specified. Wilkinson gave none.

 

[BeYeSeparate]

Maybe Wilkinson did not, I'm not arguing that he did. Hopefully we get to some examples. That is why I was asking about the Waldensian funded translation of Olivetan from their Romaunt (Provincial) version, so the possible variants can be looked into. It is a fact however, that "In 1532, two years after the Augsburg Confession, a great six-day synod, or assembly, was held at Chamforans, in the Piedmontese valley of Angrogna, attended by representatives of the Vaudois of Italy and France, and by the French Switzerland representatives, Farel, Olivétan, and Saunier, who rejoiced that the Israel of the Alps had proved faithful to their trust. This meeting of the two churches—the old and the new—brought new life and hope to the Waldenses. During this synod the Waldenses drew up a short “confession of faith,“ to supplement their older confessions. Examining Vaudois manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments in the vernacular Romaunt, the Reformed representatives urged that the whole Bible be made available in French through a printed translation. To this the Vaudois agreed, as their own books were only in manuscript Pierre Robert, called Olivétan—one of the delegates from Switzerland-was appointed to superintend the translation. For this he retired to a remote village in the valleys. The preface bears date of the seventh of February, 1535, and is sent forth “from the Alps.” This Bible, printed in Gothic characters at Neuchâtel, Switzerland, and costing the Vaudois 1,500 golden crowns, was their gift to the Reformation." (Froom, Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 1, p. 854.)

WYLIE: "Yet another token did this old [Waldensian] Church give of the vigorous life that was now flowing in her veins. This was a translation of the Scriptures into the French tongue. At the synod, the resolution was taken to translate and print both the Old and New Testaments, and, as this was to be done at the sole charge of the Vaudois, it was considered as them gift to the Churches of the Reformation. A most appropriate and noble gift! That Book which the Waldenses had received from the primitive Church—which their fathers had preserved with their blood—which their barbes had laboriously transcribed and circulated—they now put into the hands of the Reformers, constituting them along with themselves the custodians of this the ark of the world's hopes. Robert Olivetan, a near relative of Calvin, was asked to undertake the translation, and he executed it?with the help of his great kinsman, it is believed. It was printed in folio, in black letter, at Neuchatel, in the year 1535, by Pierre de Wingle, commonly called Picard. The entire expense was defrayed by the Waldenses, who collected for this object 1,500 crowns of gold, a large sum for so poor a people. Thus did the Waldensian Church emphatically proclaim, at the commencement of this new era in her existence, that the Word of God was her one sole foundation." (Wylie, History of the Waldenses, p. 18.)

"In 1535 Calvin's cousin, Pierre Robert Olivetan, produced the Neuchatel Bible, which had been sponsored mainly by the Waldensian church. ... The pastors of Geneva (Including Calvin and Theodore Beza) produced many revisions of this translation. The 1588 revision became the definitive Geneva Bible." (Eerdmans' Handbook to the History of Christianity, p. 368, Lion Publishing, 1977.)

And to sort of bring it all together, I was just reading Deanesly's Lollard Bible (which I scored a hardbound ed. of a while back) and read where she states that, "Two points, however, stand out in connexion with the original of the Tepl manuscript: (i.) The earliest Waldensian (Provençal) translations were made anterior to the issue and general acceptance of the famous Paris revision of the Vulgate, of the thirteenth century. The earliest existent Waldensian texts, Provençal, Catalan and Italian, were founded on a Latin Bible, the use of which prevailed widely in the Visigothic kingdom of Narbonne, up to the thirteenth century, but was afterwards completely superseded by the Paris Vulgate. It is characterised by a set of peculiar readings, amounting to over thirty, in the Acts of the Apostles, and these readings appear, as S. Berger pointed out, in the early Provençal, Catalan and Italian Bibles. They appear also in the Tepl manuscript: and S. Berger, whose authority is very high, gave it as his opinion that the prototype of the Tepl manuscript was translated from such a Latin version, or even from a very early Provençal version: he therefore concluded that the Tepl manuscript was of Waldensian origin." (pp.65-66. Cambridge University Press, 1966.)

But hopefully I can dig up some definitive variants. I know Fulke's Confutation goes through a long list of Latin variants in the writings of the fathers that I'm going to take a closer look at in the light of this conversation. That is where I will start anyway.

Blessings!

 

[BeYeSeparate]

I should have included Froom's sources, sorry.
"Chamforans Conference of Waldenses and Reformers.—Upon learning of the progress of the Reformation in Switzerland and Germany, the Vaudois of Piedmont rejoiced in the returning of this large group to the Word of God, and hastened to gather information concerning them. In 1526 they sent Barbe Martin, of Luserna, who brought back certain printed books of the Reformers (Monastier, op. cit., p. 141). In 1530 they deputed other barbes, including Georges Morel and Pierre Masson, to visit and confer with the Reformers at Basel and Strasburg, and to present in Latin a statement of their beliefs and practices (Morland, op. cit., p. 185. See Georges Morel, Letter to Oecolampadius, in A. Wilh. Dieckhoff, Die Waldenser in Mittelalter, pp. 363-369. For a discussion o f the letters of Georges Morel and Pierre Masson to Oecolampadius and Bucer, and their replies, see J.H. Todd, The Books of the Vaudois, pp. 8-20). They had several long conferences with Oecolampadius, Bucer, and others, asking many questions on the positions of the Reformers, and rejoicing in the evangelical answers given.
In 1532, two years after the Augsburg Confession, a great six-day synod, or assembly, was held at Chamforans, in the Piedmontese valley of Angrogna, attended by representatives of the Vaudois of Italy and France, and by the French Switzerland representatives, Farel, Olivétan, and Saunier, who rejoiced that the Israel of the Alps had proved faithful to their trust (Adeney, op. cit., p. 668; Wylie, op. cit., vol. 2, pp. 447, 448). This meeting of the two churches—the old and the new—brought new life and hope to the Waldenses.
3. FRENCH BIBLE THEIR GIFT TO REFORMATION.—During this synod the Waldenses drew up a short “confession of faith,“ to supplement their older confessions (Monastier, op. cit., pp. 146-148; Wylie, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 448; Leger, op. cit., book 1, p. 95). Examining Vaudois manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments in the vernacular Romaunt, the Reformed representatives urged that the whole Bible be made available in French through a printed translation. To this the Vaudois agreed, as their own books were only in manuscript (Perrin , op. cit ., p. 82). Pierre Robert, called Olivétan—one of the delegates from Switzerland-was appointed to superintend the translation. For this he retired to a remote village in the valleys. The preface bears date of the seventh of February, 1535, and is sent forth “from the Alps.” This Bible, printed in Gothic characters at Neuchâtel, Switzerland, and costing the Vaudois 1,500 golden crowns, was their gift to the Reformation (Muston, op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 100, 101)." (Froom, Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 1, p. 854-855.)

 

[Steven Avery]

We looked at the Tepl years back, around 2000.
That was when I first started to realize that it basically had the same textual pluses and minuses as the Vulgate.

There are a few variants where some Old Latin manuscripts have more affinity to the TR than the Vulgate. On the other hand, they also tend to have extra text that is not Scripture, that the Vulgate weeded out.