History of English Bibles

[Jolly_Joe]

In checking a bit, Tyndale’s of course wasn’t finished.

But Coverdale’s and Matthew’s Bibles contained the apocryphal books. I’m not sure if Coverdales contained 1 and 2 Esdras (3 and 4 Esdras in the Vulgate) and the Prayer of Mannaseh, but I believe Matthew’s did.

 

[SyCarl]

I think that the discussion of how many were literate and in what languages largely misses the point. If a person was illiterate they could still be read to. Now which would the illiterate be best able to understand, a bible read to them in Latin or a bible read to them in English?

 

[Contarini]

I think that the discussion of how many were literate and in what languages largely misses the point. If a person was illiterate they could still be read to. Now which would the illiterate be best able to understand, a bible read to them in Latin or a bible read to them in English?

Indeed. You are right that I should have emphasized this point instead of getting distracted by the literacy issue.

Edwin

 

[luciasclay]

I think that the discussion of how many were literate and in what languages largely misses the point. If a person was illiterate they could still be read to. Now which would the illiterate be best able to understand, a bible read to them in Latin or a bible read to them in English?

Its a red herring anyway since the scriptures were available in english, even in their entirety, prior to Wycliff. The problem was getting them printed as the press didn’t fire up for a while yet.

The idea that the Church opposed scripture in the vernacular is a myth of epic proportions.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Its a red herring anyway since the scriptures were available in english, even in their entirety, prior to Wycliff. The problem was getting them printed as the press didn’t fire up for a while yet.

The idea that the Church opposed scripture in the vernacular is a myth of epic proportions.

Just as the reformers felt they could reform the Church, they feel they can reform history. Their argument is moot today, and was not the basis for the Reformation in any event, it was just a fable they have always loved. The motive of these claims is to expose the wickedness of the Catholic Church. Anything they say against the Church, they say against Christ, and Him who sent Him. They (the unbelieving Jews) accused Christ of being a devil, and He prophesied that the servant was not above his Master, and so they (His Church) would be accused in such ways too. The Protestants are merely fulfilling these prophecies.

As I stated earlier (in this thread I think) the main disagreement is with the way the Scriptures should be read. Protestants believe in private judgment, hence you have thousands and thousands of various Protestant Churches, all teaching something different about what the Bible says, in stark contrast to the Catholic Church of Christ, which has always interpreted the Bible in the same way since Apostolic times. Not only was the Reformation uncalled for, but it was a failure.

 

[Contarini]

Its a red herring anyway since the scriptures were available in english, even in their entirety, prior to Wycliff.

You do not have solid evidence for this. You have a vague statement by St. Thomas More a couple centuries later. There were certainly a number of translations and paraphrases available in manuscript form in various Middle English dialects. But your statement is exaggerated.

Edwin

 

[luciasclay]

You do not have solid evidence for this. …
Edwin

I understand that is what you have been lead to believe. I know that you believe it sincerely. I mean you no ill when I tell you that your statement is not factually correct.

Information available elsewhere as well but its documented nicely below in Where We Got The Bible, by Graham and transcribed for me by another blogger so I’ve pasted from his page to save transcription.

But it will be said, that is the witness of a Roman Catholic. Well, I shall advance Protestant testimony also.

The translators of the Authorized Version, in their preface, referring to previous translations of the Scriptures into the language of the people, make the follow9ng important statements. After speaking of the Greek and Latin versions, they proceed, “The godly-learned were not content to have the Scriptures in the language which themselves understood, Greek and Latin…but also for the behoof and the edifying of the unlearned which hungered and thirsted after righteousness, and had souls to be saved as well as they, they provided translations into the Vulgar for their countrymen, insomuch that most nations under heaven did shortly after their conversion hear Christ speaking unto them in their mother tongue, not by the voice of their minister only but also by the written word translated…”

As all these nations were certainly converted by the Catholic Church, for there was then no other to send missionaries to convert anybody, this is really a valuable admission. The translators of 1611, then, after enumerating many converted nations that had the vernacular Scriptures, come to the case of England and include it among the others. “Much about that time” (1360), they say, “even in our King Richard the Second’s days, John Trevisa translated them into English, and many English Bibles in written hand are yet to be seen that divers translated, as it is very probable, in that age…So that, to have the Scriptures in the mother tongue is not a quaint conceit lately taken up, either by the Lord Cromwell in England [or others]…but hath been thought upon, and put in practice of old, even from the first times of the conversion of any nation.” This testimony from the preface (too little known) of their own Authorized Bible, ought surely to carry some weight with well disposed Protestants.

Moreover, the “Reformed” Archbishop of Canterbury, Cranmer, says, in his preface of the Bible of 1540, “The Holy Bible was translated and read in the Saxon tongue, which at that time was our mother tongue, whereof there remaineth yet divers copies found in old abbeys, of such antique manner of writing and speaking that few men now be able to read and understand them. When this language waxed old and out of common use, because folks should not lack the fruit of reading, it was again translated into the newer language, whereof yet also many copies remain and be daily found.”

Again, Foxe, a man that Protestants trust, says, “If histories be well examined, we shall find, both before the Conquest and after, as well as before John Wycliff was born as since, the whole body of Scripture by sundry men translated into our country tongue.” …

There is no need, it seems to me, to waste further time and space in accumulating proofs that the Bible was known, read, and distributed by the Catholic Church in the common language of the people in all countries from the seventh down to the fourteenth century. I have paid more attention to the case of England because of the popularity of the myth about Wycliff having been the first to translate it and to enable the poor blinded papists, for the first time in their experience, to behold the figure of the Christ of the Gospels in 1382.”

As to where these works went ? The wholesale looting of buildings, property etc. under Henry VIII was astounding. He expressly authorized the destruction of books and any gold and jewels and other precious things were to be given to his officers ( to ensure they complied fully ). The libraries, monestaries, etc. were looted, the books were destroyed in large fires, used for fish wrap, left in heaps in town squares, and on an on. The Holy Scriptures, being bejewled the most of all books on their covers, on their edges, even pages illuminated with paint containing at times gold itself, they went with a vengence. Such is the roots of the reformation in England. To destroy them in such manner and then turn around and say “well show me where they are and then I’ll believe” is really rather silly.

After this Wycliffs version was so bad that they had trouble selling them. The king began to demand people buy the scriptures or be fined. In some places many people preferred to pay the fine.

The persecutions of catholics, besides the confiscatins, was astounding. The Chruchmen working on the translation of the scriptures into the English had to flee to France where they were safe to do the translation. The Douay Rheims is named for the places in france where the translation and publication took place. They then shipped these translations back to England where they were banned by the crown. Those selling them were subject to brutal tortures and death. Laymen posessing the scripture were punished as well but not as severely.

The KJV folks admitted in their prefaces many things including how good the Douay Rheims was and their consultation of it in producing the Authorized Version.

These are the simple, but rarely mentioned, facts of history. If you also will not accept the testimony of the protestants, the KJV translators, or even the infamous Foxe because they don’t agree with what you have been told then I cannot be of further assistance.

I urge you though to do some reasearch into these things because what you have been lead to believe, as I myself used to believe, is not reality.

 

[Contarini]

After this Wycliffs version was so bad that they had trouble selling them. The king began to demand people buy the scriptures or be fined.

That is not true of the Wycliffite version–it was never authorized by the crown. I think you are thinking of a much later situation in the sixteenth century, though even there I’d like to see some documentation for the claim as you make it.

Edwin

 

[luciasclay]

That is not true of the Wycliffite version–it was never authorized by the crown. I think you are thinking of a much later situation in the sixteenth century, though even there I’d like to see some documentation for the claim as you make it.

Edwin

That the crown was attempting to force the uneducated people to buy scripture, even in lands that didn’t speak english is fact. That it was particulary the first wycliff version or a subsequent one my memory at this moment may not be precise.

That the crown was looting the church and persecuting the preists etc. is a fact of history. That it was suppressing English versions whose accuracy exceeded those being produced by the day, a fact attested to by the translators of the authorized version, is a fact of history.

But somehow in the mythology that passes for history in protestant circles only the violence done in backlash by Queen Mary ever gets mentioned. And all the other stuff gets sidelined in its entirety. And she was far more lenient and less cruel than what else happened.

Selective choosing facts of history, facts from scripture, etc. is the base upon which all protestantism starts. Declaring plain statements of all untrue as they are not helpful to the claims produced by protestants is a necessity or else the house of cards collapses.

So it is with everything. The Church did not oppose vernacular scripture, it was even translating it pre wycliff. If you reject the testimony of leading catholics and protestants alive at the time that is your choice. But its there and its been being pointed out all along.

Go do some research if you wish, or continue to declare that it doesn’t exist, the choice is yours.

Have a great day.

 

[Contarini]

That the crown was attempting to force the uneducated people to buy scripture, even in lands that didn’t speak english is fact.

Yes, I have heard that something of the sort happened in the sixteenth century. I would like to see a more scholarly documentation of the claim than you have yet provided, but I don’t dispute the basic claim that the government tried to force Bibles on people.

That the crown was looting the church and persecuting the preists etc. is a fact of history.

I didn’t dispute that.

That it was suppressing English versions whose accuracy exceeded those being produced by the day, a fact attested to by the translators of the authorized version, is a fact of history.

You have not documented the “fact” that the AV translators recognized the Douay-Rheims as superior. Since the DR was not directly based on the original languages, such a recognition would be truly bizarre and I strongly suspect that you are distorting the record. The AV translators certainly consulted the DR and respected the DR translators’ scholarship. Translation is an enterprise that cannot afford to be narrowly sectarian. However, in the end the persecution of the DR by Protestants was motivated by the same reasons as the persecution of Tyndale’s Bible by Catholics–both sides believed that the other had illegitimately inserted their false theological premises into the translation.

But somehow in the mythology that passes for history in protestant circles only the violence done in backlash by Queen Mary ever gets mentioned.

That’s just nonsense. You don’t know what you are talking about. I learned that the Protestant narrative was a myth from my history professors in a Protestant college, and I similarly teach my students in a Protestant college to disbelieve in these Protestant myths. The problem is that you are trying to replace one mythology with another. Your version is no more accurate than the one you are combating–you just select the facts your opponents suppress or distort and vice versa.

That the Catholic Church was deeply concerned about the results of Scripture being easily available to laypeople is abundantly documented, and no reasonable person denies it. Shucks, some folks on this forum defend it on the one hand while trying to deny it on the other. No reasonable and historically informed Protestant nowadays believes that this was motivated by hostility to Scripture. Indeed, many of us understand the legitimate theological concerns that lay behind the late medieval and early modern Catholic Church’s policies. We honor with gratitude the work of the medieval Church (which we consider to be our spiritual heritage just as it is yours) in preserving and teaching the Bible so that it could come down to us. We recognize that the only reason Protestants could come up with a doctrine of “sola scriptura” (a deeply problematic phrase, but it will do in a pinch) is that they had been taught by the Catholic Church to view Scripture as sacred and authoritative.

I do not dispute that many parts of the Bible existed in English before the work of the Wycliffites. I don’t even deny the possibility that the whole Bible had been translated, but until we turn up manuscripts we have to treat the sixteenth-century claims to that effect with some caution. But again, it is clear from the historical evidence that precisely as literacy in the vernacular was increasing (in the 14th century) the Church became increasingly concerned about the danger of heresy. And as had happened in 13th-century France, and would happen on a much broader scale after the Reformation, the Church responded to this by restricting laypeople’s access to Scripture. That is the narrative I’m defending. It does not fit either the Catholic or the Protestant mythology. It is not something I have accepted uncritically. If you want to convince me that I am wrong, you will need to do better than citing works of Catholic propaganda.

Selective choosing facts of history, facts from scripture, etc. is the base upon which all protestantism starts.

No, it’s the base on which all dogmatism starts, Catholic as well as Protestant.

If you reject the testimony of leading catholics and protestants alive at the time

Two hundred years later is hardly “at the time.” I know that from the perspective of the 21st century the 14th and 16th centuries seem close together. But that’s an illusion.

Edwin

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Contarini:

But again, it is clear from the historical evidence that precisely as literacy in the vernacular was increasing (in the 14th century) the Church became increasingly concerned about the danger of heresy. And as had happened in 13th-century France, and would happen on a much broader scale after the Reformation, the Church responded to this by restricting laypeople’s access to Scripture. That is the narrative I’m defending. It does not fit either the Catholic or the Protestant mythology. It is not something I have accepted uncritically. If you want to convince me that I am wrong, you will need to do better than citing works of Catholic propaganda.

You say that the reason the Catholic Church (meaning the local Bishops) tried to restrict access to Scripture (your words) was because of their fear of the dangers of heresy. That is partially true, but more to the point, dangerous perhaps to the reader.

But consider:
What is meant by access? Do you mean the layman was restricted from reading the Latin Vulgate in England? Answer: NO

Was the educated layman prevented from translating the Vulgate himself? Answer: NO

Was there a requirement for an approval from the Bishop for any Scriptures translated into the vernacular for distribution to the illiterate? YES

Do you or anyone else have evidence that this permission was denied?

For Scriptures poorly or heretically translated for distribution to the illiterate a denial could be counted on. But were any Catholic translations ever denied? NO

Would it have made sense or even been morally defensible for the Church to allow illiterate layman to read heretical or poorly translated Scriptures? NO

So the entire argument that you seem to be defending is that the Church acted in the best interests of the laymen during that turbulent time.

Will you complain that there were no Catholic translations until 1582? YES

Will you credit the upheavals of Henry VIII at the very beginning of the Reformation with causing a Catholic version of the Bible to be set aside in order to combat more immediate concerns? NO

Is there really any point to the whole argument that the Church tried to restrict access to the Scriptures, by historically informed Protestants, other than polemic? NO

 

[luciasclay]

Was the educated layman prevented from translating the Vulgate himself? Answer: NO

Was there a requirement for an approval from the Bishop for any Scriptures translated into the vernacular for distribution to the illiterate? YES

Do you or anyone else have evidence that this permission was denied?

For Scriptures poorly or heretically translated for distribution to the illiterate a denial could be counted on. But were any Catholic translations ever denied? NO

Would it have made sense or even been morally defensible for the Church to allow illiterate layman to read heretical or poorly translated Scriptures? NO

In fact if one would care to lay down ones hatred of Catholics before examining such events one would actually see a Church vigorously defending the integrity of the texts of scripture from corruption. A thing that it had steadfastly done for all the ages against all manner of threats in order to provide it for the protestants to yell at it for not providing. A thing which if not done would have resulted in the texts of scripture becoming so corrupted by the time of the “reformation” that there wouldn’t have been a coherent text left to base ones reformation doctrine upon.

Of course one could also hold to the theory that looting monestaries and churches, imprisoning, torturing and executing priests, burning english translations, because a King wanted to commit adultrey and subsequent recipients of said loot and lands didn’t want to give them back is justified because the Church sold indulgences.

So the entire argument that you seem to be defending is that the Church acted in the best interests of the laymen during that turbulent time.

Will you complain that there were no Catholic translations until 1582? YES

I would suggest, though none survive, the ones done during King Richard II’s day were Catholic versions. And even more ironic is the fact that the Authorized Version translators, in their preface, pointed to the Church’s ( the Catholic Church ) long history of translating scripture into the various vernaculars as the entire justification for why it was OK for them to have done it.

Of course one could also hold to the theory that those silly translators of the KJV knew absolutely nothing about the history of Biblical texts and then use them as the basis for ones doctrines. But it hardly seems like a rational view to me…