Various KJV-only authors and advocates have placed the Old Latin Bibles on their good line of Bibles. For example, Peter Ruckman included the Old Latin Version in his line of Bibles (Bible Babel, p. 82). Will Kinney [Brandplucked] wrote that "an educated guess would be that God preserved His perfect words in the Old Latin Bibles" (Flaming Torch, April-June, 2003, p. 18 ). William Grady suggested that the Old Latin "was also closely allied to the Textus Receptus" (Final Authority, p. 35). David Sorenson maintained that the Old Latin "was translated from the Received Text" (Touch Not, p. 79). David Cloud asserted that "the Scripture was also preserved in the Latin" (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 92). Cloud maintained that "the witness of the Latin manuscripts and other versions have significance in determining the text of Scripture, because these were even more commonly used by the churches through the Dark Ages than the Greek" (p. 219). Gail Riplinger referred to "pure Old Latin Bibles" (In Awe, p. 704). Jeff McArdle wrote: "Those old Latin Bibles (not including the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate translated by Jerome) were the words of God given to God's people in their own language" (Bible Believer's Guide, p. 25). Jack Chick listed the Old Latin as a Bible that was "exactly copied and correctly translated" (Next Step, p. 8 ). Gary Miller indicated that the Old Latin was one of the "faithful translations of both the Old Testament and New Testament" (Why the KJB, p. 40). Donald Clarke maintained that the KJV is "in harmony" with the ancient versions that he mentioned which included the Old Latin (Bible Version Manual, pp. 18-20). He contended that the Old Latin Bibles "agree with the King James Bible of 1611" (p. 19).
In the Old Testament, the Old Latin versions were translated from the Greek Septuagint and were thus a translation of a
translation (Geisler, General Introduction to the Bible, p. 528). A New Standard Bible Dictionary noted that in the second century "the
Septuagint was first translated into Latin, the Old Latin Bible (Vetus Itala) (p. 936). F. H. A. Scrivener as edited by Edward Miller also indicated
that the O. T. of the Old Latin "was made from the Greek Septuagint" (Plain Introduction, II, p. 57). LKV defemder Edward F. Hills
acknowledged that "the earlier Latin version of the Old Testament was a translation of the Septuagint" (KJV Defended, p. 95). In
their preface to the 1611, the KJV translators acknowledged that the [Old] Latin translations "were not out of the Hebrew fountain (we speak of the Latin
Translations of the Old Testament) but out of the Greek stream." The Cambridge History of the Bible confirmed that the O. T. of the Old
Latin version "derived from the Greek" (Vol. 1, p. 169). Fairbairn's Bible Encyclopedia also affirmed that the O. T. of the Old Latin
versions "was translated, not from the Hebrew text, but from the LXX" (VI, p. 125). Kenyon noted that O. T. translations made from the Septuagint
"include the Old Latin" (Text, p. 53). Kyle McCarter pointed out this "dependence of the Old Latin on LXX," and he indicated that
the Old Latin was a "daughter translation" of the LXX (Textual Criticism, pp. 64, 68). Emanuel Tov also maintained that "the Vetus
Latina [Old Latin] derived directly from the Greek", and he also referred to it as a "daughter translation" of the Greek Septuagint (Textual
Criticism, pp. 134, 139). Henry Swete referred to the Old Latin Bible as "the earliest daughter version of the Septuagint"
(Introduction, p. 88). Ernst Wurthwein also agreed that the Old Latin "was translated from the Septuagint," and he noted that "it has
been called 'the Septuagint in Latin clothing'" (Text of O. T., p. 91). Likewise, S. R. Driver claimed that the Old Latin Version
"was not made immediately from the Hebrew, but was formed upon the Greek" (Notes on the Hebrew Text, p. liii). Jakob van Bruggen also
indicated that the O. T. of the first Latin translations was made from the Greek Septuagint (Future, p. 40). Bruggen mentioned Augustine's
objection to Jerome's translating from the Hebrew instead of from the Greek underlying text of the Old Latin (p. 41). Adam Kamesar cited that "Jerome
notes that while his own version has been translated from the original source, the Old Latin has been 'poured into the third jar'"
(Jerome, p. 45). In an introductory article to The Abingdon Bible Commentary, Ira Price observed that the O. T. of the Old Latin was "a
translation of the LXX" (p. 105; also Price's Ancestory, p. 159). Thomas Horne noted that "the Old Italic was translated from the Greek
in the Old Testament" (Introduction, II, p. 235). Michael Sproul observed that "it is well known that the Old Latin did not base its
translation on the Masoretic text, but rather the Septuagint" (God's Word Preserved, p. 270). Simon DeVries affirmed that the Old Latin
Version of the O. T. "derives from a Greek text" (1 Kings, p. lvii). Harper's Bible Dictionary suggested that the "Old
Latin versions are valuable because they are translations of the Septuagint before Origen revised its text" (p. 747). F. C. Burkitt wrote: "The Old
Latin authorities for the book of Daniel may be divided into two families, according as they follow the genuine LXX or the Version of Theodotian" (The
Old Latin, p. 6). McCarter gave an example of where the Septuagint and the Old Latin agreed in preserving a long passage at 1 Samuel 14:41 that "was
lost from MT when a scribe's eye skipped from the first ysr'l to the third" (Textual Criticism, p. 41). William McKane presented
the examples of Genesis 31:35 where "the words 'in every part of the tent" appear in the Septuagint and the Old Latin, but not in the
Hebrew" and of Genesis 35:4 where the additional words are "'and desecrated them' and 'which can still be seen to-day'"
(Selected Christian Hebraists, p. 34). McKane cited that Simon traced the Old Latin rendering nutritus 'nourished' at Genesis 15:15
"to an inner Greek corruption" (p. 136). Swete gave "a list of the extant remains of the Old Latin Version of the LXX, and the editions in which
they are accessible" (Introduction, pp. 93-97).
Is it surprising that KJV-only authors place translations on their good line whose O. T. was translated from the Greek LXX and that would differ more from the
KJV's O. T. than some English translations rejected by them?
