Quote:
Originally Posted by yeutter  The Latin translation of the text in Isaiah does not match the Vulgate. No changes of substance, that I have found, but I note the translation is not the same. Do we know why Calvin did his own translation? |
With the emergence of the Renaissance,
the Vulgate came to be recognized as unreliable (contrary to the
Council of Trent which declares this 'translation' to be inspired and anathematizes those who disagree), and Calvin produced his own translation and wrote in Latin (cf. his writings) to allow for a wide readership ('ecclesiastical language') across Europe. His translation goes back to the original languages, whereas Rome continued to produce translations based on a rather unreliable translation.
Calvin attacks Trent's position, see his
Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent – with the Antidote (1547) thus: “There are
four heads: First, they ordain that in doctrine we are not to stand on Scripture alone, but also on things handed down by tradition. Secondly, in forming a catalogue of Scripture, they mark all the books with the same chalk, and insist on placing the Apocrypha in the same rank with the others. Thirdly, repudiating all other versions whatsoever, they retain the Vulgate only, and order it to be authentic. Lastly, in all passages either dark or doubtful, they claim the right of interpretation without challenge.”
Your question is valid but must not be viewed outside its historical context. Also cf. the role of
Robert Estienne.