Early Bible Translations

[ziapueblo]

I was talking with a protestant friend of mine and he brought up John Wycliffe and William Tyndale. He says that John Wycliffe was condemned by the Catholic Church and William Tyndale was “executed” by the Church. I’m sure that there is much more to the story. Where can I find some good, non anti-Catholic facts about these two men? Thanks

 

[Manfred]

I was talking with a protestant friend of mine and he brought up John Wycliffe and William Tyndale. He says that John Wycliffe was condemned by the Catholic Church and William Tyndale was “executed” by the Church. I’m sure that there is much more to the story. Where can I find some good, non anti-Catholic facts about these two men? Thanks

Try the Catholic Encyclopedia.

newadvent.org/cathen/15722a.htm

 

[MarcoPolo]

Tyndale.

For a treatment on Wycliff, there is also “Where We God the Bible” by Rt. Rev. Henry G. Graham. Pages 114-125 discussed why he was “condemned.” Essentially it was because, as Rev. Graham says on p. 114: “because John Wycliff’s version of the Bible was not a correct version, and because he was using it as a means of corrupting the people’s faith and of teaching them false doctrine…” In the prior chapter, Rev. Graham addresses the fallacy that Wycliff was the first to translate into the vernacular.

 

[Ignatius]

I was talking with a protestant friend of mine and he brought up John Wycliffe and William Tyndale. He says that John Wycliffe was condemned by the Catholic Church and William Tyndale was “executed” by the Church. I’m sure that there is much more to the story. Where can I find some good, non anti-Catholic facts about these two men? Thanks

Tyndale was actually executed by the secular authorities in Protestant Antwerp.

There had been translations of various parts of the Bible into the vernacular in England from as early as the 700’s under auspices of the Church.

 

[Ron_Conte]

There had been translations of various parts of the Bible into the vernacular in England from as early as the 700’s under auspices of the Church.

Which translations are you referring to?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Which translations are you referring to?

I’ll let Ignatius speak for himself, but here is a link to Rev. Graham’s book I referenced earlier. To begin far back, we have a copy of the work of Caedmon, a monk of Whitby, in the end of the seventh century, consisting of great portions of the Bible in the common tongue. In the next century we have the well-known translations of Venerable Bede, a monk of Jarrow, who died whilst busy with the Gospel of St. John. In the same (eighth) century we have the copies of Eadhelm, Bishop of Sherborne; of Guthlac, a hermit near Peterborough; and of Egbert, Bishop of Holy Island; these were all in Saxon, the language understood and spoken by the Christians of that time.

 

[Jolly_Joe]

It should be noted that one of the authorities Graham quoted was probably in error.

It would be in Chapter XI where he quotes ‘But as of the earlier period, so of this, there are none but fragmentary remains, the “many copies” which remained when Cranmer wrote in 1540 having doubtless disappeared in the vast and ruthless destruction of libraries which took place within a few years after that date’

It appears Cranmer was probably in error when he talks of many Bibles being available before Wycliffe’s translation. What probably happened was that Wycliffe’s first translation, which had no name or anything on it was mistaken for the work of others.

We don’t know absolutely for certain, but the evidence points that way. For instance we have no surviving copies of the supposed translations, now maybe they all were destroyed, or if you looked and recognized them as an early Wycliffe they would appear to have disappeared.

And we just don’t have references to a printing or distribution in any sort of numbers of any translation to fit the story. If such a translation or translations existed, they have been lost to history at least for now. The earlier translations were really in what effectively was a different language, and there were parts translated at the time, especially the Psalms. But the preponderance of the evidence at this time favors that there was no complete Bible in the language of the people of England at the time of Wycliffe before he made one.

And if Wycliffe’s translation taught false doctrine, as is commonly stated, then it should be a relatively simple thing to show how it is a false translation from the Vulgate. It is of course a translation of a translation and that should be kept in mind as should the scribal errors such as the Johannine Comma that had crept into many Latin manuscripts which is reflected in Wycliffe’s translation, but those things kept in mind, it does not read as a poor translation.

JJ

 

[MarcoPolo]

And if Wycliffe’s translation taught false doctrine, as is commonly stated, then it should be a relatively simple thing to show how it is a false translation from the Vulgate.

I believe it was his footnotes that attacked the Church and Pope, not necessarily his translation.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

But the preponderance of the evidence at this time favors that there was no complete Bible in the language of the people of England at the time of Wycliffe before he made one.

I think a very important point, made by Graham, is that at the time of Wycliffe, those that were able to read were able to read Latin. In fact courses at the Universities were taught in Latin. There was really no need for a vernacular language Bible, as the illiterate people that spoke the vernacular would not have been able to read an English Bible either. So emphasizing the fact that there was no complete English Bible before the time of Wycliffe, beside being a conjecture, is meaningless. Since printing was not yet invented, all “complete Bibles in English” would have been manuscript copies. They may have been very few because translations were supposed to be approved by the Diocesan Authority. And any translations would most likely have been done by a scholar that obviously already knew Latin.

Another very interesting point made by Graham, is that during the height of the Reformation the English people that were able to read English, were forced by Law to buy bibles, as Bible sellers were unable to get rid of their copies. It became a crime NOT TO BUY a Bible! Many people paid the fines rather than buy a Bible.

Lastly, Graham points out how the English Reformers, who were supposedly so interested in spreading the vernacular Bible were the main destroyers of all the books and manuscripts (especially Bibles in English) that were found throughout England in the Libraries, Monasteries and Universities. It was the most hateful thing ever done to Scripture since the Pagan Roman Emperors ordered Scriptures to be burned whenever found!

 

[Ron_Conte]

I believe it was his footnotes that attacked the Church and Pope, not necessarily his translation.

Wycliffe’s translation is very literal. As far as I can tell from having read numerous verses of it throughout the entire Bible, it does not attempt to alter the text to support some heretical position or some doctrinal error. It is mainly criticized by scholars for being too literal.

I like his translation, and I have found it useful, even though he was a heretic.