Were there any non-Catholic Bibles before the Protestant Reformation?

[Contarini]

I’m a Bible Christian thinking about becoming a Catholic. My Protestant friends tell me the Catholic Bible can’t be trusted.

How are they defining “Catholic Bible”?

I think the KJV was the first English language Bible written in 1611

No. It was the end point of a long series of translations/editions starting with William Tyndale’s translation of the NT in the 1520s.

.but were there any non-Catholic Bibles in any language before the Protestant Reformation?

Depends on how you define “non-Catholic.” The only complete translation of the Bible into English before the Reformation was the “Wyclif Bible” in the fourteenth century, which was produced by a movement (the “Lollards”) who were considered unorthodox by the Catholic hierarchy. Starting in the early fifteenth century, the Lollards were savagely persecuted and their Bible was banned as heretical–in fact all translation of the Bible into English was banned. This had not been the case earlier–large chunks of the Bible had been translated and/or paraphrased into English at various points throughout the Middle Ages–and it wasn’t the case at the end of the Middle Ages in most of the rest of Europe. Vernacular translations were regarded with suspicion by many churchmen, but there were quite a lot of them in a bunch of different European languages in the late fifteenth and early 16th centuries, and the Church did not ban them. English-speaking Protestants tend to assume that the English situation was the norm, when it quite definitely wasn’t. (After the Reformation there was a more general restriction–ironically not in England, where Catholics were a persecuted minority and needed a Bible of their own in order to refute Protestantism!)

Ediwn

 

[Contarini]

The KJV was NOT the first English translation of the Bible.

The Douay-Rheims (an excellent Catholic bible) was the first English translation of the Bible.

No, there were a number of Protestant translations before it, not to mention the Wyclif Bible and a number of partial translations throughout the Middle Ages.

Edwin

 

[Salvatore123]

Actually, the Duoay Rheims WAS the first english translation of the CATHOLIC Bible, that is, one where the deuterocanonical books were placed in their proper order and were not eliminated from or segregated to a separate section of the bible.

If one wants to be really picky about this, one can ask: what does one mean by “english”? The DR was translated from the Latin Vulgate (as it existed at the time - St. Jerome’s original Latin Vulgate had long sinced to exist by the 1500’s) into what we now refer to as “Middle English” - a version of the english language that we can understand without much effort (the hardest part is the spelling differences - surprisingly, Middle English reads more phonetically than modern english).

 

[aragonjohn1]

How are they defining “Catholic Bible”?

No. It was the end point of a long series of translations/editions starting with William Tyndale’s translation of the NT in the 1520s.

Depends on how you define “non-Catholic.” The only complete translation of the Bible into English before the Reformation was the “Wyclif Bible” in the fourteenth century, which was produced by a movement (the “Lollards”) who were considered unorthodox by the Catholic hierarchy. Starting in the early fifteenth century, the Lollards were savagely persecuted and their Bible was banned as heretical–in fact all translation of the Bible into English was banned. This had not been the case earlier–large chunks of the Bible had been translated and/or paraphrased into English at various points throughout the Middle Ages–and it wasn’t the case at the end of the Middle Ages in most of the rest of Europe. Vernacular translations were regarded with suspicion by many churchmen, but there were quite a lot of them in a bunch of different European languages in the late fifteenth and early 16th centuries, and the Church did not ban them. English-speaking Protestants tend to assume that the English situation was the norm, when it quite definitely wasn’t. (After the Reformation there was a more general restriction–ironically not in England, where Catholics were a persecuted minority and needed a Bible of their own in order to refute Protestantism!)

Ediwn

See my post #8 for more info on English bible editions

Shalom
God bless

 

[Mintaka]

The Douay-Rheims was not translated into Middle English. It was translated into Early Modern English. The spelling may seem a bit wacky, but so is Shakespeare’s, and he also wrote in Early Modern English.

Middle English is like Chaucer.

Old English is like Beowulf.

 

[Contarini]

Actually, the Duoay Rheims WAS the first english translation of the CATHOLIC Bible, that is, one where the deuterocanonical books were placed in their proper order and were not eliminated from or segregated to a separate section of the bible.

Untrue. The Wyclif Bible listed the books in what you call their “proper” order. (I question whether there really is a “proper” order, but that’s perhaps a separate discussion.)

The Protestant translations did indeed place the “apocrypha” in a separate section.

If one wants to be really picky about this, one can ask: what does one mean by “english”? The DR was translated from the Latin Vulgate (as it existed at the time - St. Jerome’s original Latin Vulgate had long sinced to exist by the 1500’s) into what we now refer to as “Middle English” - a version of the english language that we can understand without much effort (the hardest part is the spelling differences - surprisingly, Middle English reads more phonetically than modern english).

As someone else has pointed out, it’s Early Modern English, not Middle English. For Middle English, see my link to the “Wyclif Bible” above.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

See my post #8 for more info on English bible editions

These do not appear to have been complete editions.

More’s claim is unsubstantiated.

Edwin

 

[Farsight001]

I’m a Bible Christian thinking about becoming a Catholic. My Protestant friends tell me the Catholic Bible can’t be trusted. I think the KJV was the first English language Bible written in 1611 but were there any non-Catholic Bibles in any language before the Protestant Reformation?

The KJV was, far and away, not the first. It was the 9th New Testament and the 7th Old Testament to be translated into English. (10th and 8th if you include the Olde English bible from the 700’s translated by Catholic monks). The Douay Reihms bible is a Catholic bible that precedes the KJV by 2 years. In fact, since the manuscript that the KJV used for it’s New Testament was in such poor condition when found, I am to understand that the translators of the KJV were forced to simply use the Douay to fill in the gaps in a few places.

Some of those other bibles in English were not specifically Catholic such as the Tyndale Bible and the Geneva Bible, but they are generally considered absolutely positively horrible translations. Though it is necessary to point out that some would argue that the protestant reformation began when these bibles were created, and not with Martin Luther.

I know not about any other language except that the Jesuits spread the bible around in several languages very early in their existence.

 

[Salvatore123]

I apologize for not being precise with my response regarding “english”.

Some people think that one can actually put a year as a firm date when one form of language ended and another began.

The transition from “Middle English” to “Early Modern English” took place over a relatively long period of time.

Wikipedia would have one believe that “Middle English” ceased to exist in the year 1500, when that is simply not the case.

I think it is more accurate to say that the Duoay Rheims was the first COMPLETE Catholic bible translated into what most linguists call the “english language”, that contained a translation deemed without error by Trent.

This discussion alone highlights what Catholics have been given a “bum rap” for - not allowing just anyone to pick up an existing Latin text and purporting to “translate” it into whatever vernacular the translator happened to be using as his final product.

St. Thomas more and others knew how cunning someone could be with a book as long as the Bible. A few changes in wording here and there and suddenly one has changed the meaning of very important dogma/doctrine taught for centuries.

If one had left it up to Luther, he would have discarded the Book of James (among others - even protestants accepted James) because of its explicit praise of “works” in one’s life.

P.S. - many people do not realize that St. Jerome’s “Latin Vulgate” was NOT the basis for the “english translations” that most people are talking about in this thread. By the 1400-1500’s, Jerome’s LV had long since disappeared. Most scholars believe that it existed as late as 700 AD, but after that, the “true” LV was lost. Someone might ask: How does one “lose” a bible? It is not that the BIBLE was lost - it was the manner in which the bible was handed down.

Until Gutenberg and his printing press, books were passed down - particularly in the case of the bible - by monks literally sitting hunched over in monasteries copying/translating every word of the bible by hand. When one realizes this, one begins to understand how easily it could be for one book to read “X” while another would read “XX” (I did not use “Y” because the differences were not like night and day - but the differences DID exist).

 

[Contarini]

Some of those other bibles in English were not specifically Catholic such as the Tyndale Bible and the Geneva Bible, but they are generally considered absolutely positively horrible translations.

Generally considered by whom? On what basis?

Though it is necessary to point out that some would argue that the protestant reformation began when these bibles were created, and not with Martin Luther.

That doesn’t make sense, since Luther himself translated the Bible in the early 1520s. (There were a lot of translations into German before his time, though–the situation in Germany was very different from that in England.)

Edwin

 

[Salvatore123]

Contarini,

As an Episcopalian, you would obviously not “believe” or “give credence” to this, but the Douay Rheims Bible is the ONLY bible to date that has been declared “free from error” by a dogmatic council - the Council of Trent.

No other bible before or after has had that distinction.

Even the Nova Vulgata (produced during the reign of Pope JPII), which is considered the Catholic Church’s “official bible” today does not have that imprimatur.