Wycliff and Luther's Bible contrasted

[Cyril_Of_Canada]

I find it VERY interesting to contrast the Wycliff Bible with Luther’s german translation of the Bible. Both individuals were considered to be Reformers, unless I am wrong about Wycliff here. At the very least, he is seen alongside the Protestant Reformers as a forerunner in wanting to translate the Bible into the vernacular and give the Bible to the masses—a reform itself in what is perceived as fighting against the power of the Church in a sense.

Wycliff existed before the Reformation; Luther existed during it’s time and kick started it.
One Bible was in line with the Catholic Bible; One wasn’t.
One Bible added to the Canon of Scripture; One subtracted from it.

Why didn’t Luther use Wycliff’s English translation of the Bible if he really was concerned
with mass distribution of a bible in the vernacular? It’s a really innocent question that begs the question: Did Luther know about the Wycliff Bible? Was “faith alone” in Wycliff’s bible? Did John Hus and Wycliff view justification as “faith alone” or did the originate with Luther?

If so, why didn’t he sent it off to the printers for mass publication and distribution? He could have saved himself a lot of time from translating the Bible—unless of course it wasn’t about mass distribution of a bible in the vernacular but all about Martin Luther’s biased theological views. He took out the deterocanons and tried to subtract four books from the New Testament as well.

Why didn’t Wycliff and Hus do that? Why didn’t Luther use Wycliff’s bible and the added Paul’s letter Wycliff added to the canon. I think this demonstrates not only that Wycliff’s Bible was good to be considered unauthorized—it alone added to the canon–/it also demostrates Martin Luther’s theological bias, and for him it was never about distributing a bible in the vernacular.

 

[Contarini]

I find it VERY interesting to contrast the Wycliff Bible with Luther’s german translation of the Bible. Both individuals were considered to be Reformers, unless I am wrong about Wycliff here. At the very least, he is seen alongside the Protestant Reformers as a forerunner in wanting to translate the Bible into the vernacular and give the Bible to the masses—a reform itself in what is perceived as fighting against the power of the Church in a sense.

Certainly popular Protestant mythology links them. Scholars, as usual, are more cautious. You’re right of course that both of them were very interested in making the Bible more widely available and in using it to reform Christianity. Both were maverick scholastic theologians deeply influenced by Augustine. They criticized a lot of the same things. They had a somewhat similar doctrine of the Church, though Wyclif’s emphasized moral behavior much more. And that, according to Luther himself, was the big difference–that Wyclif, Hus, and others focused on reforming morals, while Luther got at the doctrinal issues that in his view were the root of the problem.

I know you know that they lived in different countries and had different vernaculars, but I think you don’t give this enough importance. Wyclif had very little direct impact on Luther, for whom Hus was much more relevant. (And according to Luther, he hadn’t read Hus’ writings until the Leipzig Debate of 1519.)

With regard to vernaculars, their situations were very different. There was no complete Bible translation in English in Wyclif’s time, although significant sections had been translated at various times in the previous centuries. There were, by accounts I’ve read, something like 17 editions of the Bible available in German before Luther!

Why didn’t Luther use Wycliff’s English translation of the Bible if he really was concerned
with mass distribution of a bible in the vernacular?

That’s an odd question, since Luther was a German-speaker, not an English-speaker. Do you mean, “why didn’t he base his German translation on Wyclif’s English translation?” But why would he do that? That’s not the best approach in translating the Bible. Furthermore, the “Wycliffite” translation was based on the Latin Vulgate (as I believe were those pre-existing German translations, though I’m not entirely sure). Luther went back to the original languages. (A further point that may not be too relevant is that Wyclif is generally not thought to have done the translation himself–it was made by people who followed his ideas and thus is historically associated with him. Again, this is a point of difference between the mythology and the views of scholars.)

Did Luther know about the Wycliff Bible?

I think so, but I’m not sure. The Lollards really weren’t on his radar screen much, I think.

Was “faith alone” in Wycliff’s bible? Did John Hus and Wycliff view justification as “faith alone” or did the originate with Luther?

No, they did not believe in sola fide. They were Augustinians who certainly believed in salvation by grace alone, but they held to the fairly standard medieval Augustinian view that salvation was the result of the gift of charity being placed in your heart and bringing forth fruit in good works. They had a lot in common with someone like Staupitz, who was Luther’s theological mentor. They certainly were out on the side of medieval theology Luther had the closest affinity with, but Luther very quickly moved way beyond any of his predecessors in his view of salvation.

If so, why didn’t he sent it off to the printers for mass publication and distribution?

I’m really baffled by what good you think a Bible in English would have been to Germans!

The better question is why Luther didn’t think the existing 17 editions of the Bible in German were good enough. And certainly a desire to translate the Bible so as to reflect what he believed to be its true meaning was part of that. But there were also scholarly and linguistic questions–Luther was drawing on the most recent scholarship, such as Erasmus’ pioneering critical edition of the Greek NT and accompanying Latin translation, and also the existing translations may not have been very readable. It’s often been said that Luther basically created the German language as a vehicle for literature. Before him there were many regional dialects and a Bible in one might not be very accessible to people in another one. I think that this, like a lot of consensus views, has come under some fire in recent years, and I don’t know what the current consensus is. But it’s certainly something to bear in mind.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I think it’s been pretty well refuted that Luther actually translated the Bible in it’s entirety. He wouldn’t have had the time to do all that much in the time frame as recognized. Many German translations were already available, Luther tweaked them to fit his mode and translated a few texts.

 

[Pulvis]

For some light reading into the history:

greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/ (Very Protestant. No offense intended)

historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ac66

For a heavier in depth read, here you go:
faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/new_testament_greek/text/metzger-earlytranslations01-bs.pdf

 

[steido01]

I think it’s been pretty well refuted that Luther actually translated the Bible in it’s entirety. He wouldn’t have had the time to do all that much in the time frame as recognized. Many German translations were already available, Luther tweaked them to fit his mode and translated a few texts.

No, it really hasn’t.

He had plenty of time. He took just under 2 years on the New Testament, which is about right for a Greek scholar who’d been studying the language since Latin Grammar school and was literally holed up in a castle with nothing better to do. It took him 12 years to translate the Old Testament to the point that it was ready for printing.

What set Luther’s translation apart from previous German translations (and what’s contributed to its persistent legend) is that he translated from the original languages, not from Latin. Plenty of other German bibles existed, but they were hard to come by and their language was stilted, most having been translations of translations. Luther’s was translated to be readable in a true vernacular. That’s largely the reason his became the standard for Hoch German language.

Despite the venom Roman Catholic translators would toss at him, especially for translating “alone” in Romans 3:28, they largely copied his work. A fitting irony that a Pope would later agree with Luther’s translation.

 

[Cyril_Of_Canada]

Haaaaaa, oh man, well that’s embarassing.
You’re right. Luther would have no need of an english translation.
I’m not sure why I forgot to take that into account.