[ Bottom of Page ]

By God's grace, still presenting the same old message from the same old Book...

Itala 157

Bruce M. Metzger admits it was not the Received Text but instead Jerome used the Alexandrian Greek for the Latin Vulgate (382-400) of the Catholic Church. Jerome had enmity of the Received text, the Greek Vulgate. The Itala Vulgate (157), also sometimes referred to as the Old Latin Vulgate, was based on the Greek Vulgate or Received Text. The Itala was in the way of the Catholic Church. 

Jerome being commissioned by the Catholic Church translated a revision of the Itala Vulgate, Jerome’s Vulgate coming to be known as the Latin Vulgate (382). The Catholic Church’s Latin Vulgate, based on the Alexandrian family, was used for ushering in the Dark Ages. 

Through history, 1545-1563 the Council of Trent declared the Latin Vulgate the official Bible of the Catholic Church. In 1592 Pope Clement VIII authorized another authentic addition of the Latin Vulgate. While all the time that was the official version of the Catholic Church, it was not the readings used by Christians. 

Jerome recognized the difference between the Received Text and the Alexandrian. The Catholic Church recognizes the difference between the Received Text and the Alexandrian, and bases their official version today, as then, on the Alexandrian readings. Helvidius, and his pupil Jovinian recognized there is a difference. Those Christians that used the Received Text at the cost of their blood certainly recognized there was a difference. F. J. A. Hort recognized a difference, and said, "I do not think the significance of their existence is generally understood ... It is quite impossible to judge of the value of what appears to be trifling alterations merely by reading them one after another. Taken together, they have often important bearings which few would think of at first..." Vance Smith, a prominent contemporary of Westcott and Hort, says of the changes, "It has been frequently said that the changes of translation ... are of little importance from a doctrinal point of view ... [A]ny such statement [is] ... contrary to the facts." 

"No one, I believe, has till now made a systematic examination of the quotations occurring in the writings of the Fathers who died before A.D. 400 and in public documents written prior to that date. . . . The testimony therefore of the [76] Early Fathers is emphatically according to the issue of numbers in favour of the Traditional Text, being about 3:2. But it is also necessary to inform the readers of this treatise, that here quality confirms quantity. A list will now be given of thirty important passages in which evidence is borne on both sides, and it will be seen that 530 testimonies are given in favour of the Traditional readings as against 170 on the other side. In other words, the Traditional Text beats its opponent in a general proportion to 3 to 1." (Dean Burgon, The Traditional Text, pp. 94, 101-102)

"As far as the Fathers who died before 400 A.D. are concerned, the question may now be put and answered. Do they witness to the Traditional Text as existing from the first, or do they not? The results of the evidence, both as regards the quantity and the quality of the testimony, enable us to reply, not only that the Traditional Text was in existence, but that it was predominant, during the period under review. Let any one who disputes this conclusion make out for the Western Text, or the Alexandrian, or for the Text of B and Aleph, a case from the evidence of the Fathers which can equal or surpass that which has been now placed before the reader." (Dean Burgon, The Traditional Text, p. 116)

Some say defenders of a pure text line are confusing differences of textual lines with differences of doctrine, as if there were no difference in doctrine. But do they really believe what they themselves are saying?

Jerome, the Catholic Church, Helvidius, and his pupil Jovinian, plus believers that used the Received Text at the cost of their blood, F. J. A. Hort, and Vance Smith would not have been impressed at having it explained to them there is really no significant difference in the two text families. 

There is first, the Antiochian family that is the stream of the King James Bible, and second is the Alexandrian that is used for all the conflicting versions that do not agree with the King James Bible. These two streams are different.

The Received Text was used by Christians those many years and that at the cost of much blood. For fifteen hundred years the Textus Receptus was used by Christians, and the Alexandrian readings rejected. The readings of the Alexandrian remained the foundation during that time by the Catholic Church and is the foundation used for the Catholic Church yet today. Today, since 1881 the many modern versions being issued are based on the Alexandrian readings and so align with the Catholic Church in that respect, using the Alexandrian family, and not the readings of the Reformation, so are on the opposite side of the many that lost their blood beginning back in the first centuries of Christendom, to hold the Received text, and so are opposed to the Textus Receptus (Antiocian family), Tyndale's Bible, Luther's Bible, Geneva Bible, and the 1611 King James Version.

The Itala of 157 was copied and used through the thirteenth century, while during that time the Catholic Church official version was the Latin Vulgate of Jerome. Believers would have been making the copies of the Itala. There are no extant codex of the complete "Old Latin of 157" (Itala). There was OT Old Latin and NT Old Latin. While I find the Itala seems to have allied close to the Textus Receptus, I don’t say extant copies show it to be word for word. There are between 8,000-10,000 various extant sources of Vulgate and there is much difference between them. But there certainly was difference between the Jerome Vulgate 382 and the Itala 157. What remains is not a clear record as it was used by a persecuted people.

“The Italic or pre-Waldensian Church produced a version of the New Testament which was translated from the Received Text by the year A.D. 157” Fredrick Henry Scrivner, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament , 1874

“The Bible translation of the Italic Church came to be known as the Itala translation. The point of all this is that the Itala Bible was translated from the Received Text” Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts , 1859 

Amidst persecution and bloodshed, for one thousand years the Waldenses, Albigenses, and other groups of Christians rejected the Catholic Church and their Latin Vulgate, and copied the Received Text as used for the Itala Vulgate. 

B. M. Metzger admits copies of the Old Latin were being copied from the forth through the thirteenth century. While Metzger did not directly say about the Itala being based on the Received Text, Metzger did say the Itala was copied and used through the thirteenth century, while during that time the Catholic Church official version was the Latin Vulgate of Jerome. Believers would have been making the copies of the Itala. There are no extant  codex of the complete "Old Latin of 157" (Itala). There was OT Old Latin and NT Old Latin. While the Itala seems to have allied close to the Textus Receptus, extant evidence suggests it might not have been just the same. What remains is not a clear record as it was used by a persecuted people. That is a history stained with blood. 

The Catholic Church authorized a replacement of the "Old Latin" in 382, then in 1592 a new edition of the Latin Vulgate was made and the new became the official version of the Catholic Church. Then Jerome's Latin Vulgate began to be known as the "Old Latin" but so is the Itala 157 known as Old Latin. As well, the likes of Kurt Aland worked on recreating his version of the original Old Latin, the Itala, and it must be said that Kurt Alan is no friend of the Received Text. With that, keep in mind there are no codex of the entire Itala 157, the original Old Latin.

What the Catholic Church says about the Itala or what Kurt Aland ended up with is of little consequence to me, and there is little to verify now. But it is noteworthy, various sources show the Old Latin (Itala) as being in the lineage of the 1611 King James Version, allied with the Received Text, while Jerome's Latin Vulgate is shown to be part of the Alexandrian lineage and not part of the Received Text. Grady, in 'Final Authority', p. 9, says the original Old Latin (Itala Bible) was the preserved word of God for Latin speaking believers, and Grady says it is closely allied with the Textus Receptus (Final Authority, p. 35) . The Itala and the Jerome Latin Vulgate are two separate and different sources.

The Catholic Latin Vulgate has text that agrees with Aleph and B, Alexandrian, and that was available for Tyndale, and for the KJV translators. They rejected it. Some trying to slip the Alexandrian text in place of the traditional Received Text say the Alexandrian were not available to the translators back then. They certainly were, in the Latin Vulgate. They rejected them however. 

Wycliff is an interesting study. The text shown in his version is not altogether along the lines of the KJV, but it is often counted in the line of the KJV. There are some translations from it used in the KJV, not much. You might investigate what Purvey is said to have done to Wycliff's translation, to help understand what is left of the Itala. Some say Wycliff’s translation was more in line with the KJV, but that it was revised after his death to make it more in line with the Catholic version. That man said to do that, John Purvey, ended up with the Catholic Church. That is what I have been taught. Wycliff's translation is said to have been changed, and so has the Itala 157 been changed. The enemy of the faith casts doubt on the word of God.

While some would say I am seriously mistaken about the Itala 157, I say, in clear terms, I do not agree with them. My side is shown in my post. You are welcomed to your opinion. I have shown what I have to say. There are two basic histories being told about these matters, with one showing among other things, the history somewhat in line with the Catholic Church version. The other history line is splattered with blood and I believe culminates in the text of the King James Bible.

There is a lot of conflicting information about the Latin vulgate, either the Itala, or sometimes called Old Latin, or Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, Clementine's, or a few others in there. I have some "opinions" about the Itala, and believe it was tampered with as it did not agree with the Catholic idea of what the Bible should say. There is no codex of the Itala now, but there has been much effort to say what it was like, generally by Catholic sympathetic sources. There was much difference in various copies of the Itala and yes, the Catholic Church wanted to fix that up, not doing Christians a favor. The Catholic Church gave Jerome's Vulgate that was Alexandrian, and shows text of Aleph and B. 

But some of the Itala shows it follows the text line of the KJV, and that from very early on, a century before history as passed down by certain sources claim the text of the Received Text, as used for the KJV is said to exist. That is the question, what is the received text (John 17: . I suspect that if we were there back in the 2nd-4th century, (and we were not; and history is hard to prove especially with all the persecution that is part of these things) we would have seen some work going on to "mess up" the text of the Itala, making way for the Jerome Vulgate. The Itala I believe had a likeness to the text of the TR, but admittedly some evidence shows otherwise as well. 

There is much more I could say, and I already said more than I intended, but what I will say, I do not trust the history that lines up with the Catholic Church. There were Christians being killed by them, and Christians used the text line of what is said to be the Itala 157, with the text received as used for the King James Bible. In the sixteenth century, I have heard it said, some of those readings of that Old Itala were then extant. That text was different than the Jerome Vulgate, the official version of the Catholic Church. 

Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 

Bob Krajcik
Mansfield, Ohio
Jesus remains my defense. 
Isaiah 54:17 . . . This is the heritage 
of the servants of the LORD, 
and their righteousness is of me, 
saith the LORD.

Bible Study Letters

A message of comfort from the Scriptures,
that we through patience and comfort
of the scriptures might have hope.

Come and hear, all ye that fear God,
and I will declare what he hath done for my soul.
Psalms 66:16

[ Home Page ] [ Main Menu ]

Bob Krajcik
[ Bible Study Letters ]
 Your Comments Welcomed
Your Privacy Respected
Send Your Comments, Questions,
Praise Reports or Prayer Requests

[ Top of Page ]