The B-Files: A Hoax of a Bible, Part II
In the last post, I explained why Tony Bushby’s claims that he had an English translation of the Vulgate that was substantially different in contents from the established canon was completely bogus. He had inferred the Church had altered the Bible at a later date and what we have now differs enormously from what Jerome translated. This claim is nonsense as we have thousands of Vulgate manuscripts from long before this period. We also have Greek manuscripts going back to the earliest centuries of the Church. Simply put, such claims display an incredible ignorance on Bushby’s part even if there existed some aberrant English translation.
However, the supposed translation Bushby claimed does not exist. He made this claim nearly a decade ago and has yet to produce the text. What he has is a New Testament published in 1582 that he is trying to pass off as a complete Vulgate that differs greatly from what the canonical texts. Let us now look at the visual evidence he provides.
First of all, Bushby makes a point that the charts that appear in the work do not appear in modern Vulgates. However, those charts were part of the original printing of the New Testament in 1582. Then one of the pictures shows the Preface to the New Testament but it is obviously near the beginning of the book when it should instead have appeared after the Old Testament. The reason is the book Bushby is passing off as this “hidden Bible” is the original New Testament of the Douay-Rheims Bible from 1582. The entire claim by Bushby is a total fraud and he has yet to produce this supposed “hidden Bible” for scholarly verification. Don’t expect it ever to turn up or Bushby to do anything but make more absurd claims for his not being able to produce it.
[I wish to extend my thanks to William Dewey Loundermilk for his research on the matter of Bushby’s “Bible” in his book The Bushby Fraud]