Right, they didn't straight copy the TR. They used many references, from TR, to other earlier translations of the Bible (eg Coverdale, Tyndale, Wesley, Luther, Geneva, Bishops, etc) to get the most accurate English translation they could do. So if there is Vulgate in the KJV, it could be direct (eg. Latin to English), indirect (eg. Latin to Greek to English, or Latin to German to English) or both direct and indirect. Also, their lexicons of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew words may have some measure of reliance upon Vulgate for word meanings, depending on which was used. A lot of reading I've done this morning focused on dictionaries and word sense of the original MS to see how they derived the English words. Translation is complicated lol... Like ten possible word meanings in Hebrew to a single word in English or several options in English. Definitely makes me appreciate all the hard work that went into the Bible!
I'm most familiar with the reports that the last part of Revelation in the TR comes from the Vulgate, as Erasmus didn't have a Greek manuscript source for that fragment. I'd have to look to see if KJV did a direct translation for that segment by referencing early manuscripts or if they used the TR, which would be an indirect Vulgate reference.
Apparently there are some good books out there that cover the history of Biblical translation processes quite well, but I have a long reading list as it is and this isn't near the top. But I will get around to getting one for reference at some point.
I found that Baptistboard.com has a lot of good threads on the subject, with some helpful pointers amidst the standard internet chaff.
From what I've read, the KJV commission had the vulgate amongst the works they were referencing, but never used it. An easy way to solve this issue, would be to compare the two to see where they match, word for word. I have no idea if anyone has done this.
The KJV has zero latin vulgate in it. The main reference used was the Textus Receptus.
TR has patchwork Vulgate in it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Instrumentum_omne
But did any vulgate make it into the KJV? The KJ committee didn't just copy the words of the TR.
Right, they didn't straight copy the TR. They used many references, from TR, to other earlier translations of the Bible (eg Coverdale, Tyndale, Wesley, Luther, Geneva, Bishops, etc) to get the most accurate English translation they could do. So if there is Vulgate in the KJV, it could be direct (eg. Latin to English), indirect (eg. Latin to Greek to English, or Latin to German to English) or both direct and indirect. Also, their lexicons of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew words may have some measure of reliance upon Vulgate for word meanings, depending on which was used. A lot of reading I've done this morning focused on dictionaries and word sense of the original MS to see how they derived the English words. Translation is complicated lol... Like ten possible word meanings in Hebrew to a single word in English or several options in English. Definitely makes me appreciate all the hard work that went into the Bible!
I'm most familiar with the reports that the last part of Revelation in the TR comes from the Vulgate, as Erasmus didn't have a Greek manuscript source for that fragment. I'd have to look to see if KJV did a direct translation for that segment by referencing early manuscripts or if they used the TR, which would be an indirect Vulgate reference.
Apparently there are some good books out there that cover the history of Biblical translation processes quite well, but I have a long reading list as it is and this isn't near the top. But I will get around to getting one for reference at some point.
I found that Baptistboard.com has a lot of good threads on the subject, with some helpful pointers amidst the standard internet chaff.
From what I've read, the KJV commission had the vulgate amongst the works they were referencing, but never used it. An easy way to solve this issue, would be to compare the two to see where they match, word for word. I have no idea if anyone has done this.