The New Teachings of Erasmus
July 21, 2015
G.D.O'Bradovich III
1
The many citations of the Oxford English Dictionary seem to confirm the existence of both the Old Testament and New Testament in England before the Renaissance.
a1300 Cursor Mundi 120,
I sal yow schew wit myn entent Brefli of aiþere testament.
a1340 R. Rolle Psalter Prol.,
Þe lare of þe ald testament & of þe new.
▸a1387 J. Trevisa tr. R. Higden Polychron. (St. John's Cambr.) (1869) II. 293
In þe olde testament me redeþ... In þe newe testament.
1447 O. Bokenham Lyvys Seyntys (1835) Introd. 3
As the old testament beryth witnesse.
1532 T. Elyot Let. in Bk. named Gouernour (1880) I. Introd. p. lxxix,
Thei..doo peruse euery daye one chapitre of the New Testament.
At the initial stage our our research, we have no reason to question their findings. However, we note a quirk in the translations of the Bible:
a1300 Cursor Mundi 120,
I sal yow schew wit myn entent Brefli of aiþere testament.
a1340 R. Rolle Psalter Prol.,
Þe lare of þe ald testament & of þe new.
▸a1387 J. Trevisa tr. R. Higden Polychron. (St. John's Cambr.) (1869) II. 293
In þe olde testament me redeþ... In þe newe testament.
1447 O. Bokenham Lyvys Seyntys (1835) Introd. 3
As the old testament beryth witnesse.
1532 T. Elyot Let. in Bk. named Gouernour (1880) I. Introd. p. lxxix,
Thei..doo peruse euery daye one chapitre of the New Testament.
At the initial stage our our research, we have no reason to question their findings. However, we note a quirk in the translations of the Bible:
In Christian Latin use of testāmentum... arising from the fact that Greek διαθήκη, ... was applied both to a covenant (pactum, fœdus) between parties, and to a testament or will (testamentum).
While it is interesting that one Greek word was translated for three Latin words, we must not forget that Greek was unknown in western Europe until the 1480’s, therefore, no one was translating various Latin words into one Greek word until after the introduction of Greek.
When Erasmus created the “New Teaching”, an implication is that he ignored the convention of calling the New Testament the New Testament. A corollary of this assumption is that Erasmus went against centuries of tradition. There is nothing in Erasmus’ life to suggest he was a maverick scholar who defied convention. It is possible that Erasmus was unaware of the Old Testament or Jewish law and so he was unaware he was against common knowledge and tradition. In order to challenge the Oxford English Dictionary’s chronological placement of documents, we will examine sections of the New Testament in detail.
We are told Wycliffe “strictly followed the Vulgate, rendering foedus, pactum, by boond, covenaunt, rather indiscriminately, testamentum in the Psalter and New Testament always by testament.”
As in the case of Luther, the tradition of sacred scripture was unknown or was ignored, since Erasmus added additional passages in subsequent editions (Comma Johanneum). Even this “maverick scholar” would not want to provoke the ire of the Roman Church by changing long established and accepted scripture. Therefore, we are confident that during this time no concept of divinely inspired scripture was known, since Erasmus and Luther either changed the text or added words for clarification.
When Erasmus created the “New Teaching”, an implication is that he ignored the convention of calling the New Testament the New Testament. A corollary of this assumption is that Erasmus went against centuries of tradition. There is nothing in Erasmus’ life to suggest he was a maverick scholar who defied convention. It is possible that Erasmus was unaware of the Old Testament or Jewish law and so he was unaware he was against common knowledge and tradition. In order to challenge the Oxford English Dictionary’s chronological placement of documents, we will examine sections of the New Testament in detail.
We are told Wycliffe “strictly followed the Vulgate, rendering foedus, pactum, by boond, covenaunt, rather indiscriminately, testamentum in the Psalter and New Testament always by testament.”
As in the case of Luther, the tradition of sacred scripture was unknown or was ignored, since Erasmus added additional passages in subsequent editions (Comma Johanneum). Even this “maverick scholar” would not want to provoke the ire of the Roman Church by changing long established and accepted scripture. Therefore, we are confident that during this time no concept of divinely inspired scripture was known, since Erasmus and Luther either changed the text or added words for clarification.
We bring to the reader’s attention the citations of the Apocalypse before Erasmus’ publication:
OE Rule St. Benet (Tiber.) xii. 36
Æfter þysum sy gecweden an ræding of apocalipsin gemyndelice butan bec.
c1175 Lamb. Hom. 81
Herof seid Seint Johan þe ewangeliste in apocalipsi.
?c1225 (▸?a1200) Ancrene Riwle (Cleo. C.vi) (1972) 74
‘Hit isan derne halewi seið sein Iohan þe godspeller in þe apocalipsi.
c1400 Rom. Rose 7395
That sallow horse of hewe, That in the Apocalips is shewed.
a1440 Sir Degrev. 1437
The Pocalyps of Ion.
We remind the reader that the Orthodox lectionary quotes large sections of the entire New Testament, but there is no references to the Apocalypse. Clearly, the Apocalypse is a tradition of the western church.
Of course, the reader should not be alarmed by these citations, since they are expected and we assume Erasmus included the Apocalypse because it was a part of the long established Vulgate Bible. We do not doubt that the individual manuscripts of the epistles and Gospels of the New Testament existed, as they still exist in the Orthodox church, and Erasmus only collected them into one book: The New Teaching.
eOE King Ælfred tr. Gregory Pastoral Care (Hatton) (1871) xvii. 117
... on his epistolan ...
OE Homily (Otho C.i) in Anglo-Saxon Eng. 26 (1997) 218
...s halgan Iacobes epistole.
950c Lindisf. Gosp. Matt. ix. 35
Ðe hælend..bodade god~spell ...
1230c (▸?a1200) Ancrene Riwle (Corpus Cambr.) (1962) 179
Þe apostle..seið in his epistle.
1275c (▸?a1200) Laȝamon Brut (Calig.) (1978) l. 14726
...beode þer Godes godd-spel.
1297 R. Gloucester's Chron. (Rolls) 1529
Seinte peter..vor to preche þen gospel ...
1380c Wyclif Sel. Wks. III. 348
Þei letten hem for to preche, and speciali Cristis gospel.
1382 Bible (Wycliffite, E.V.) Acts xx. 24
The gospel of the grace of God.
1382 Bible (Wycliffite, E.V.) Eph. i. 13
... resceyueden the gospel of ȝoure heelthe.
1384c Prol. Catholic Epist. (....) in Bible (Wycliffite, E.V.) (1850) IV. 594
... epistolis ...
1425a Wyclif Sel. Eng. Wks. (1871) II. 277
Poul telliþ in þis epistle of fredom ...
1450a Ordination of Nuns (Vesp.) i... (1902) 145 (MED),
...Þe Epistil & þe godspel....
1475?a (▸?a1425) tr. R. Higden Polychron. (Harl.) (1865) I. 149
... wryte an epistole.
1491 in J. Cooper Cartularium Eccl. St. Nicholai Aberdonensis (1888) I. 256
The epistill ...
1500a (▸?a1450) Gesta Romanorum (BL Add. 9066) 373
... the apistille;... the gospell.
OE Rule St. Benet (Tiber.) xii. 36
Æfter þysum sy gecweden an ræding of apocalipsin gemyndelice butan bec.
c1175 Lamb. Hom. 81
Herof seid Seint Johan þe ewangeliste in apocalipsi.
?c1225 (▸?a1200) Ancrene Riwle (Cleo. C.vi) (1972) 74
‘Hit isan derne halewi seið sein Iohan þe godspeller in þe apocalipsi.
c1400 Rom. Rose 7395
That sallow horse of hewe, That in the Apocalips is shewed.
a1440 Sir Degrev. 1437
The Pocalyps of Ion.
We remind the reader that the Orthodox lectionary quotes large sections of the entire New Testament, but there is no references to the Apocalypse. Clearly, the Apocalypse is a tradition of the western church.
Of course, the reader should not be alarmed by these citations, since they are expected and we assume Erasmus included the Apocalypse because it was a part of the long established Vulgate Bible. We do not doubt that the individual manuscripts of the epistles and Gospels of the New Testament existed, as they still exist in the Orthodox church, and Erasmus only collected them into one book: The New Teaching.
eOE King Ælfred tr. Gregory Pastoral Care (Hatton) (1871) xvii. 117
... on his epistolan ...
OE Homily (Otho C.i) in Anglo-Saxon Eng. 26 (1997) 218
...s halgan Iacobes epistole.
950c Lindisf. Gosp. Matt. ix. 35
Ðe hælend..bodade god~spell ...
1230c (▸?a1200) Ancrene Riwle (Corpus Cambr.) (1962) 179
Þe apostle..seið in his epistle.
1275c (▸?a1200) Laȝamon Brut (Calig.) (1978) l. 14726
...beode þer Godes godd-spel.
1297 R. Gloucester's Chron. (Rolls) 1529
Seinte peter..vor to preche þen gospel ...
1380c Wyclif Sel. Wks. III. 348
Þei letten hem for to preche, and speciali Cristis gospel.
1382 Bible (Wycliffite, E.V.) Acts xx. 24
The gospel of the grace of God.
1382 Bible (Wycliffite, E.V.) Eph. i. 13
... resceyueden the gospel of ȝoure heelthe.
1384c Prol. Catholic Epist. (....) in Bible (Wycliffite, E.V.) (1850) IV. 594
... epistolis ...
1425a Wyclif Sel. Eng. Wks. (1871) II. 277
Poul telliþ in þis epistle of fredom ...
1450a Ordination of Nuns (Vesp.) i... (1902) 145 (MED),
...Þe Epistil & þe godspel....
1475?a (▸?a1425) tr. R. Higden Polychron. (Harl.) (1865) I. 149
... wryte an epistole.
1491 in J. Cooper Cartularium Eccl. St. Nicholai Aberdonensis (1888) I. 256
The epistill ...
1500a (▸?a1450) Gesta Romanorum (BL Add. 9066) 373
... the apistille;... the gospell.
We know Luther did not think highly of the books of James, Hebrews, Jude, and the Apocalypse, so he placed them at the end of his New Testament translation. Since they remain at the end of the Lutheran Bibles today, there was never an established sequence for the Bible. Luther, for whatever reason, did not exclude these books from his New Testament. We speculate the “maverick scholar” was too well established even for the fiery German to dismiss outright.
From the circumstantial evidence from the Oxford English Dictionary and Erasmus, the New Testament canon must have been established by the time of Wycliffe’s translation, since it includes the Apocalypse. We note there is only one source referring to Wycliffe (d. 1384) that is dated before Erasmus’ New Testament publication in 1516.
c1400 Knighton's Chron. (Rolls) II. 184
Sicque a vulgo Wyclyff discipuli et Wyclyviani ...
c1400 Knighton's Chron. (Rolls) II. 312
... super Lollardos sive Wyclyvianos.
1570 J. Foxe Actes & Monumentes (rev. ed.) II. 965/2
... a right Wicleuian.
1621 R. Montagu Diatribæ Hist. Tithes 100
..., by the Wickleuians.
1654 H. Turberville Man. Controv. 47
Let him not cite the Wicklefians, ...
1717 M. Earbery in tr. A. Varillas Pretended Reformers Pref. p. vi,
Our new Allies the Lutherans, Calvinists, and Wickliffians.
As late as 1717, Lutherans, Calvinists and Wycliffites are treated as being contemporary. For comparison, the earliest references to Martin Luther (d. 1546) are either from 1846 and 1902 or 1623 and 1650.
1521 W. Warham Let. 8 Mar. in H. Ellis Orig. Lett. Eng. Hist. (1846) 3rd Ser. I. 240
... the open Lutheranes beyond the See.
1530 T. Cromwell in R. B. Merriman Life & Lett. Cromwell (1902) I. 333
...from the lutheran sekt.
1623 Shakespeare & J. Fletcher Henry VIII iii. ii. 100,
I know her for A spleeny Lutheran.
1650 R. Stapylton tr. F. Strada De Bello Belgico iii. 53
... into a Lutheran family.
Therefore, we are confident that Wycliffe has been misdated: as Luther is translating the Bible into German, so Wycliffe is translating it into English. Luther is based on Erasmus’ Textus Receptus and we assume Wycliffe is also based on the Textus Receptus.
Although it is not unreasonable to assume that the New Testament existed as one book during the alleged life of Wycliffe in the 1380’s, Wycliffe's late arrival to the English language casts doubt on this supposition.
We note the odd behavior of Erasmus as it related today: He traveled to Basel to work on a translation and he was not certain, but hopeful, that the appropriate manuscripts were, in fact, present. We consider the “maverick scholar” to be fortunate. One wonders what the New Testament canon would consist of today, if different manuscripts were found.
We read that Erasmus went to Turin and learned Greek by involving himself with native speakers from the east. There is nothing extraordinary in these statements, until one realizes that talking to English speakers today will not be helpful in understanding English grammar as it existed a thousand years ago. Once again, this is a confirmation that the “ancient Greek manuscripts” of the western Renaissance and native Greek speakers of the 16th century are, if not contemporary, then only removed by a few generations.
Such statements as these that are presently found in scholarly works, without question or commentary, is a reason for concern- no one dares ask how, or in what manner, it it beneficial for Erasmus to learn modern Greek for his historical Greek studies. As Fred wrote: “...the philologist says fraud.”
Of course, we do not expect the Oxford English Dictionary staff and contributors to recognize irregularities that are beyond their narrow field of expertise and competency (for example: Corpus Christi is documented in English a century before the Council of Trent of authorized Corpus Christi). However, we have the luxury of collecting these philological anarchisms and attempting to correct chronological placements.
Previously, we read that one Greek word is used to translate two concepts and three different words in the Latin. Due to the long established and accepted chronology, researchers are unable to reach an equally reasonable conclusion-multiple Latin words were used to translate one Greek word in the original text. Whereas one Greek word conveys the necessary shades of meaning, Latin has words that are more specific in meaning- testament, pactum and fœdus -that can be used depending on the context.
From the circumstantial evidence from the Oxford English Dictionary and Erasmus, the New Testament canon must have been established by the time of Wycliffe’s translation, since it includes the Apocalypse. We note there is only one source referring to Wycliffe (d. 1384) that is dated before Erasmus’ New Testament publication in 1516.
c1400 Knighton's Chron. (Rolls) II. 184
Sicque a vulgo Wyclyff discipuli et Wyclyviani ...
c1400 Knighton's Chron. (Rolls) II. 312
... super Lollardos sive Wyclyvianos.
1570 J. Foxe Actes & Monumentes (rev. ed.) II. 965/2
... a right Wicleuian.
1621 R. Montagu Diatribæ Hist. Tithes 100
..., by the Wickleuians.
1654 H. Turberville Man. Controv. 47
Let him not cite the Wicklefians, ...
1717 M. Earbery in tr. A. Varillas Pretended Reformers Pref. p. vi,
Our new Allies the Lutherans, Calvinists, and Wickliffians.
As late as 1717, Lutherans, Calvinists and Wycliffites are treated as being contemporary. For comparison, the earliest references to Martin Luther (d. 1546) are either from 1846 and 1902 or 1623 and 1650.
1521 W. Warham Let. 8 Mar. in H. Ellis Orig. Lett. Eng. Hist. (1846) 3rd Ser. I. 240
... the open Lutheranes beyond the See.
1530 T. Cromwell in R. B. Merriman Life & Lett. Cromwell (1902) I. 333
...from the lutheran sekt.
1623 Shakespeare & J. Fletcher Henry VIII iii. ii. 100,
I know her for A spleeny Lutheran.
1650 R. Stapylton tr. F. Strada De Bello Belgico iii. 53
... into a Lutheran family.
Therefore, we are confident that Wycliffe has been misdated: as Luther is translating the Bible into German, so Wycliffe is translating it into English. Luther is based on Erasmus’ Textus Receptus and we assume Wycliffe is also based on the Textus Receptus.
Although it is not unreasonable to assume that the New Testament existed as one book during the alleged life of Wycliffe in the 1380’s, Wycliffe's late arrival to the English language casts doubt on this supposition.
We note the odd behavior of Erasmus as it related today: He traveled to Basel to work on a translation and he was not certain, but hopeful, that the appropriate manuscripts were, in fact, present. We consider the “maverick scholar” to be fortunate. One wonders what the New Testament canon would consist of today, if different manuscripts were found.
We read that Erasmus went to Turin and learned Greek by involving himself with native speakers from the east. There is nothing extraordinary in these statements, until one realizes that talking to English speakers today will not be helpful in understanding English grammar as it existed a thousand years ago. Once again, this is a confirmation that the “ancient Greek manuscripts” of the western Renaissance and native Greek speakers of the 16th century are, if not contemporary, then only removed by a few generations.
Such statements as these that are presently found in scholarly works, without question or commentary, is a reason for concern- no one dares ask how, or in what manner, it it beneficial for Erasmus to learn modern Greek for his historical Greek studies. As Fred wrote: “...the philologist says fraud.”
Of course, we do not expect the Oxford English Dictionary staff and contributors to recognize irregularities that are beyond their narrow field of expertise and competency (for example: Corpus Christi is documented in English a century before the Council of Trent of authorized Corpus Christi). However, we have the luxury of collecting these philological anarchisms and attempting to correct chronological placements.
Previously, we read that one Greek word is used to translate two concepts and three different words in the Latin. Due to the long established and accepted chronology, researchers are unable to reach an equally reasonable conclusion-multiple Latin words were used to translate one Greek word in the original text. Whereas one Greek word conveys the necessary shades of meaning, Latin has words that are more specific in meaning- testament, pactum and fœdus -that can be used depending on the context.
We read that Jerome and Wycliffe are not consistent in their translations, but they are consistent with each other:
“Jerome translated the Hebrew by foedus and pactum indifferently.”
“In English Wyclif strictly followed the Vulgate, rendering foedus, pactum, by boond, covenaunt, rather indiscriminately…”
Jerome in “the New Testament has always testamentum.” Likewise, Wycliffe is consistent in his translation. (“testamentum...and New Testament always by testament.”)
Since Erasmus did not attempt a translation of the Old Testament, we can speculate as to the reason-he was unaware of it, it did not exist or he was not concerned about the Old teachings. A truly fortunate maverick scholar who would be involved in five editions of the New Testament, but not attempt a translation of the Old Testament, is not unreasonable considering the demands upon his time.
We must reasonably conclude the existence the Old Testament, since the New Teachings supposes the existence of the Old Teachings. We can not be certain what Erasmus thought the books of the Old Testament might include, or if any books were part of the Old Testament. Because of the absence of the Old Testament by Erasmus, we can not reasonably conclude that Luther knew the canon. We speculate the fiery German pieced together the Old Testament, a la Dr. Frankenstein, from various manuscripts found in a library, a la Erasmus.
We have previously addressed the misdating of the Gutenberg Bible (the editor of this book understood the rules of addition and subtraction of Roman numerals, whereas the editors of the later Coverdale Bible did not) and we have no other New Testaments before Erasmus.
Such examples as Vaticanus found in the Vatican library a la Hezekiah’s book of the law; found in a trash heap of a monastery, a la Sinaiticus; or on a library shelf, a la Hardouin, have no merit in our research and therefore, we conclude that the New Testament is a product of the western church, generally, and of Erasmus, specifically: Erasmus created the New Testament from various manuscripts found in Basil.
“Jerome translated the Hebrew by foedus and pactum indifferently.”
“In English Wyclif strictly followed the Vulgate, rendering foedus, pactum, by boond, covenaunt, rather indiscriminately…”
Jerome in “the New Testament has always testamentum.” Likewise, Wycliffe is consistent in his translation. (“testamentum...and New Testament always by testament.”)
Since Erasmus did not attempt a translation of the Old Testament, we can speculate as to the reason-he was unaware of it, it did not exist or he was not concerned about the Old teachings. A truly fortunate maverick scholar who would be involved in five editions of the New Testament, but not attempt a translation of the Old Testament, is not unreasonable considering the demands upon his time.
We must reasonably conclude the existence the Old Testament, since the New Teachings supposes the existence of the Old Teachings. We can not be certain what Erasmus thought the books of the Old Testament might include, or if any books were part of the Old Testament. Because of the absence of the Old Testament by Erasmus, we can not reasonably conclude that Luther knew the canon. We speculate the fiery German pieced together the Old Testament, a la Dr. Frankenstein, from various manuscripts found in a library, a la Erasmus.
We have previously addressed the misdating of the Gutenberg Bible (the editor of this book understood the rules of addition and subtraction of Roman numerals, whereas the editors of the later Coverdale Bible did not) and we have no other New Testaments before Erasmus.
Such examples as Vaticanus found in the Vatican library a la Hezekiah’s book of the law; found in a trash heap of a monastery, a la Sinaiticus; or on a library shelf, a la Hardouin, have no merit in our research and therefore, we conclude that the New Testament is a product of the western church, generally, and of Erasmus, specifically: Erasmus created the New Testament from various manuscripts found in Basil.
post script
If the Gentle Reader realizes that we have omitted the venerable and long established Vulgate of Jerome, we offer the following from the 1920 update of the Oxford English Dictionary with select commentary:
1609 Bible (Douay) I. To Rdr. p. iii b,
So that the old Vulgate Latin Edition hath bene preferred, and vsed for most authentical aboue a thousand and three hundered yeares.
As late as 1609, the authority of the Vulgate is established on the authority of more than 1,300 years of continual use.
1728 E. Chambers Cycl. (at cited word),
M. Simon calls the Greek Version of the Seventy, before it was revis'd and reformed by Origen, The antient Vulgate Greek.
We learn of a “Vulgate Greek” version of the scriptures that is referred to as the septuagint today.
1728 E. Chambers Cycl. (at cited word),
The antient Vulgate of the Old Testament, was translated almost Word for Word, from the Greek of the Seventy.
1728 E. Chambers Cycl. at Septuagint,
The Chronology of the Seventy, is an Account of the Years of the World, very different from what is found in the Hebrew Text, and the Vulgate.
1730a A. Blackwall Sacred Classics (1731) II. Pref. p. xvi,
The Latin vulgate Bible was declar'd authentic and canoniz'd by the council of Trent, a.d. 1546.
The council of Trent authorizes the use of the ancient and venerable Vulgate.
1776 A. Smith Inq. Wealth of Nations II. v. i. 350
The latin translation of the Bible, commonly called the Latin Vulgate.
1782 V. Knox Consid. Lord's Supper xvii, in Wks. (1824) VII. 423
At this hour it stands so translated in the Vulgate Bible, for ages the only Bible of the people.
In 1782, we learn there was only Bible, the Vulgate version.
1815 F. Nolan (title) , An Enquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, or Received Text of the New Testament.
Thirty years later, we learn of another vulgate; the “Greek Vulgate”.
1818 H. Hallam View Europe Middle Ages II. ix. 440
The vulgate Latin of the Bible was still more venerable.
1843 Penny Cycl. XXVI. 465
All the Romish translations of the Bible into the modern languages profess to have been made not from the Greek and Hebrew, but from the Vulgate.
1846 A. Marsh Father Darcy II. ii. 65
The answer of the priest..was to repeat..the following passage of Scripture from the Vulgate.
1855 Cassell's Pop. Bibl. Educator II. 39/1
At that time the old Itala was the Vulgate, or Common Version.
1860 W. A. Wright in W. Smith Dict. Bible I. 857/2
The Vulgate rendering of Prov. xxvi. 8.
1861 F. A. Paley Æschylus' Prometheus (ed. 2) 966 (note) ,
His objection to the vulgate reading and interpretation..appears quite groundless.
1863 B. F. Westcott in W. Smith Dict. Bible III. 1688/2
But both the Greek and the Latin Vulgates have been long neglected.
NB-”Vulgates” is plural.
1863 B. F. Westcott in W. Smith Dict. Bible III. 1705/1
The splendid pages of the Mazarin Vulgate.
1863 B. F. Westcott in W. Smith Dict. Bible III. 1705/2 (heading)
The Sixtine and Clementine Vulgates.
1872 (title) The Vulgate New Testament, with The Douay Version of 1582, in Parallel Columns.
1881 B. F. Westcott & F. J. A. Hort New Test. in Orig. Greek II. Introd. iii. 80
The name ‘Vulgate’ has long denoted exclusively the Latin Bible as revised by Jerome.
From 1863, Westcott states that the “vuglates” have been neglected, but in 1881, he states that “Vulgate” is only applicable to the Latin Bible. Clearly, Biblical understanding progressed considerably in less than twenty years.
1883 Athenæum 22 Dec. 809/2
This pre-Lutheran Bible version has been fittingly termed by Geffcken the ‘German Vulgate’.
As late as 1883, we learn about the pre-Lutheran Bible.
1887 Encycl. Brit. XXII. 824/1
The so-called Pĕshīṭtā,..the Syriac vulgate.
1894 Athenæum 26 May 681/2
[The papyri,] as is generally the case with Homer papyri of this period, support the vulgate text.
1609 Bible (Douay) I. To Rdr. p. iii b,
So that the old Vulgate Latin Edition hath bene preferred, and vsed for most authentical aboue a thousand and three hundered yeares.
As late as 1609, the authority of the Vulgate is established on the authority of more than 1,300 years of continual use.
1728 E. Chambers Cycl. (at cited word),
M. Simon calls the Greek Version of the Seventy, before it was revis'd and reformed by Origen, The antient Vulgate Greek.
We learn of a “Vulgate Greek” version of the scriptures that is referred to as the septuagint today.
1728 E. Chambers Cycl. (at cited word),
The antient Vulgate of the Old Testament, was translated almost Word for Word, from the Greek of the Seventy.
1728 E. Chambers Cycl. at Septuagint,
The Chronology of the Seventy, is an Account of the Years of the World, very different from what is found in the Hebrew Text, and the Vulgate.
1730a A. Blackwall Sacred Classics (1731) II. Pref. p. xvi,
The Latin vulgate Bible was declar'd authentic and canoniz'd by the council of Trent, a.d. 1546.
The council of Trent authorizes the use of the ancient and venerable Vulgate.
1776 A. Smith Inq. Wealth of Nations II. v. i. 350
The latin translation of the Bible, commonly called the Latin Vulgate.
1782 V. Knox Consid. Lord's Supper xvii, in Wks. (1824) VII. 423
At this hour it stands so translated in the Vulgate Bible, for ages the only Bible of the people.
In 1782, we learn there was only Bible, the Vulgate version.
1815 F. Nolan (title) , An Enquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, or Received Text of the New Testament.
Thirty years later, we learn of another vulgate; the “Greek Vulgate”.
1818 H. Hallam View Europe Middle Ages II. ix. 440
The vulgate Latin of the Bible was still more venerable.
1843 Penny Cycl. XXVI. 465
All the Romish translations of the Bible into the modern languages profess to have been made not from the Greek and Hebrew, but from the Vulgate.
1846 A. Marsh Father Darcy II. ii. 65
The answer of the priest..was to repeat..the following passage of Scripture from the Vulgate.
1855 Cassell's Pop. Bibl. Educator II. 39/1
At that time the old Itala was the Vulgate, or Common Version.
1860 W. A. Wright in W. Smith Dict. Bible I. 857/2
The Vulgate rendering of Prov. xxvi. 8.
1861 F. A. Paley Æschylus' Prometheus (ed. 2) 966 (note) ,
His objection to the vulgate reading and interpretation..appears quite groundless.
1863 B. F. Westcott in W. Smith Dict. Bible III. 1688/2
But both the Greek and the Latin Vulgates have been long neglected.
NB-”Vulgates” is plural.
1863 B. F. Westcott in W. Smith Dict. Bible III. 1705/1
The splendid pages of the Mazarin Vulgate.
1863 B. F. Westcott in W. Smith Dict. Bible III. 1705/2 (heading)
The Sixtine and Clementine Vulgates.
1872 (title) The Vulgate New Testament, with The Douay Version of 1582, in Parallel Columns.
1881 B. F. Westcott & F. J. A. Hort New Test. in Orig. Greek II. Introd. iii. 80
The name ‘Vulgate’ has long denoted exclusively the Latin Bible as revised by Jerome.
From 1863, Westcott states that the “vuglates” have been neglected, but in 1881, he states that “Vulgate” is only applicable to the Latin Bible. Clearly, Biblical understanding progressed considerably in less than twenty years.
1883 Athenæum 22 Dec. 809/2
This pre-Lutheran Bible version has been fittingly termed by Geffcken the ‘German Vulgate’.
As late as 1883, we learn about the pre-Lutheran Bible.
1887 Encycl. Brit. XXII. 824/1
The so-called Pĕshīṭtā,..the Syriac vulgate.
1894 Athenæum 26 May 681/2
[The papyri,] as is generally the case with Homer papyri of this period, support the vulgate text.