G
guanophore
Guest
Since when was England not part of Europe? What kind of history lesson IS this?
Why wouldn't the Roman church allow scripture to be translated into the tongue of the people?
- Status
G
guanophore
Guest
You are reading the wrong book, Gamera. You need to read The Tyndalian History of the Bible from Europe to England by Zamora. This highly acclaimed (although fictional) work with a few salient points will get you straightened right around.
G
Godfollower
Guest
If you’re a Catholic priest who has asked for permission from the Catholic Church to do your own translation of the Bible but has been turned down because of (A) your own heretical viewpoints and (B) your own poor translations, then yes: the Church has the right to condemn your works. But Wycliff was retired and died of a stroke. He was not burned at the stake. I believe Tyndale was strangled and his body was burned at the stake (someone can check me on that if I’m wrong), but his crime was not translation of the Bible per se; it was mistranslating the Bible to suit his theology (St. Thomas More is supposed to have said that looking for errors in Tyndale’s translation was like looking for water in the ocean).
(Not that I support killing him for it; that was wrong. Catholics and Protestants have been killing each other for centuries, and it’s wrong every time, no matter which side is killing which.)
It’s easy to repeat accusations that people were killed for daring to translate the Bible. But the truth is that the Catholic Church had already made vernacular translations available, centuries before Wycliff and Tyndale. What it condemned was mistranslating the Bible – which I assume Protestants would also condemn.
Z
zerinus
Guest
I am satisfied that that information is correct. I obtained it from watching a very authoritative and well made television documentary about the subject some years ago. I can’t remember now the name of the program.
That does not speak much for Henry Graham’s book! He probably writes with a Catholic bias.
That is a very disingenuous comment. Just because the popularity of the Da Vinci Code spells a bad omen, it does not mean that the popularity of the Bible must also spell a bad omen! That is like saying that Hitler, who was a very popular leader, was bad news; it therefore George Washington and Nelson Mandela, who were also very popular leaders, must have been bad news! That is just bad logic. Are you seriously suggesting that just because the popularity of the Da Vinci Code is undesirable, it therefore follows that the popularity of the Bible might also be undesirable?
I can’t believe that. It is contrary to all the information that I have read or acquired. If that were true, Wycliff and Tyndale and the rest wouldn’t have needed to lay down their lives for the cause of making the Bible easily available to the masses in their native language. Tyndale is famously reported to have said to a local cleric: “If God spare my life, ere many years pass, I will cause a boy that driveth the plough shall know more of the Scriptures than thou dost”. Why waste his time (and lay down his life) if that were already possible without any effort on his part?
zerinus
G
Gamera
Guest
No. I am suggesting that the popularity of a publication, by itself, proves nothing. The fact that a particular (mis)translation of the Bible is popular, doesn’t prove that previous Bibles weren’t available or adequate, any more than the popularity of the DaVinci Code proves that something was “missing” before it came along.
Perhaps it would help if you could state an authoritative source for your version of Bible history. One TV show that you once saw, really isn’t a persuasive source of authority for the rest of us. Can you, for instance, cite some history books which document this claim? What authors make the claim? Are they qualified historians? Does their claim enjoy peer approval in the community of professional historians and scholars? Or is this just an allegation repeated so often that “it must be true” even though nobody can cite any documentation for it?
Again, at least I can refer you to a particular book – Graham’s — which describes English Scripture translations before Wycliff (and of course, we’ve been focusing on English, but the OP mentioned “the tongues of the people” and that includes all the Bibles in Spanish, French, Italian, and other European languages which existed long before the Reformation).
Incidentally, Tyndale’s last words were “Lord, open the King of England’s eyes” – he was executed under Anglican authority, not Catholic.
D
dolphinlove
Guest
was not attempting to insult you.
God Bless
Z
zerinus
Guest
You don’t burn someone for making a poor translation. If someone’s translation is poor, that is easy to demonstrate. You just show people why it is bad, and then people won’t want to read it; or if they read it, they can compare it with a better one and convince themselves.
That is true. Wycliff was not put to death, although he was persecuted. But 44 years after he had died, the Pope was so enraged at his audacity to make an independent translation of the Bible, that he ordered his bones to dug up from his grave, ground to powder and cast over the river! Some Pope!
That is correct. He was strangled at the stake, before he was burned. But even the strangling was not done properly, and during the burning he regained his consciousness.
That is absolute rubbish. Tyndale was a genius. He was the greatest Bible translator of all time (at least into English). 70% of the KJV is still Tyndale’s
I am not a Protestant—for your information!
zerinus
D
dolphinlove
Guest
G
Gamera
Guest
Tyndale’s last words reportedly were “Lord, open the eyes of the King of England.” Anglican, not Catholic, Church authority sentenced him to death.
To read more about what really happened with Tyndale, I suggest this article:
catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0212fea3.asp
G
Gamera
Guest
We know, we know, we know. How is this relevant? Or is this just some good “dirt” on Catholics? I thought we were discussing the myth that the Catholic Church forbade people to translate the Bible. You seem to have conceded the point by admitting that the problem was an “independent” translation, not just “a translation.” There was nothing forbidden about translating the Bible — that is the point of this thread.
Y
YADA
Guest
Where is the OP responding to the preponderance of evidence that many [and multiple versions] translations of scripture existed almost from the very beginning of the Church…some approved by the church and some not…
BrandenRush…awaiting your acknowledegement of a false [and perhaps slanderous] accusation…along with your apology…
BrandenRush…awaiting your acknowledegement of a false [and perhaps slanderous] accusation…along with your apology…
Z
zerinus
Guest
I am afraid it is your information that is unreliable and incorrect. I just did a Google search for pre-Reformation translations of the Bible into English, and this it the first page that came up (emphasis mine):
The first English translations of the Bible were oral rather than written. Before the sixteenth century, these were made from the Latin Vulgate rather than the original Hebrew and Greek languages.
According to Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation (731) by the Venerable Bede, Caedmon (ca. 650- ca. 680) wrote alliterative poetry on biblical themes. We know of Caedmon only through Bede’s history. A portion of Caedmon’s “The Hymn of Creation.” is paraphrased in it.
The Venerable Bede
“The Venerable Bede Translates John” by J. D. Penrose
Bede was not only the first historian of England but he was also a theologian and made a saint. He prepared the earliest known written English translation of any part of the Bible (ca. 673-735). Just before he died, it has been reported, he translated the Gospel of John, or a portion of it, into Anglo-Saxon. No copies have survived.
Other early translations include the Book of Psalms by Aldhelm, Bishop of Sherborne (640-709); the Ten Commandments and other parts of Exodus 21-23 by Alfred the Great (849-899), king of the West Saxons; and an interlinear English translation in the Lindisfarne Gospels.
As you can see, NO proper English translation of the Bible existed prior to Wycliff and Tyndale’s works. The above information was extracrted from this site:
gbgm-umc.org/UMW/Bible/english.stm
zerinus
Z
zerinus
Guest
There was no “Anglican” church at that time. The authorities were Catholic English authorities.
I just looked. That article is historically very inacurate and incorrect.
zerinus
Z
zerinus
Guest
Z
Zooey
Guest
Oy vay!! Branden, my friend, for the past few weeks, I have
been enjoying the most amazing experience. I have been sitting down each day, with 2 Bibles: the Latin Vulgate, & the Douay, and reading from each. What a joy! What a privilege!
The Douay was translated into English, by the Catholic Church, to provide the Scriptures in the language of the people, in the 16th C.
The Vulgate, was of course, translated by the Catholic Church, hundreds upon hundreds of years earlier, to provide the people the Scriptures in their own language, which was then, of course, Latin. St Jerome did the greater part of the work, leaning upon the Greek & Hebrew which had been preserved by the Catholic Church, to provide people with the Holy Scriptures in their own language. He also used the Old Latin–Classical Latin, the language of the early Christians…said Old Latin translation having been made from Greek, to provide the people with the Bible in their own language, by–of course–the Catholic Church.
In a few words, Branden,: Laddie, ye dinnae know what ye speak of. “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a worker that needeth not to be ashamed”, & read history. Not these ridiculous faradiddles from the likes of Boettner, Hislop, Chick, & Co. History, real, true history… It will do ye guid, yean!
Z
zerinus
Guest
The Catholic Church made the Douay Bible only after all their attempts to suppress independent translations of the Bible into English failed; and they did so in order not to left behind! But the Douay Bible is very much an inferior work compared to the latter, because it was made from the Latin vulgate, which was known to be full of errors, instead of from the original languages of Greek and Hebrew, which was bound to be better. Erasmus had already shown that the Latin Vulgate had many errors; and he had prepared a more acurate Greek text of the New Testament which was used by Tyndale to make his first translation of the NT into English.
zerinus
G
Gamera
Guest
I’ve seen that website before. Note the lack of sources for their claims. Anybody can post allegations on the internet — that proves nothing except my earlier suggestion that people tend to believe that if something is repeated often enough, “it must be true.”
You still have not directed me to any documentation (not mere repetition) of your version of Bible history. What book by a published historian contains these claims?
G
Gamera
Guest
Based on what? What specifically is “inaccurate?” Please cite a basis for your conclusion so that I can follow along.
G
Gamera
Guest
“No copies have survived” of the original Scriptures! That doesn’t disprove their existence. Is it supposed to prove something that “no copies have survived” of early English Bibles? If so, then you’re arguing against the original Scriptures themselves, of which “no copies have survived.”
G
Gamera
Guest
Zerinus, read Graham’s Chapter on “Vernacular Translations Before Wycliff” for yourself.
geocities.com/alcovey1/docs/Where_We_Got_The_Bible_Henry_Graham.htm#CHAPTER_XI
- Status