Tyndale's 1526 translation of the NT had no notes.
Posted on 05/06/2011 11:09:57 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
While [King Henry VIII] was still Catholic, William Tyndale sought permission to translate the Bible into English so that even “a boy who drives the plow” might know Scripture. Permission was denied, and Tyndale moved to Germany where he completed the first translation of the English New Testament made from Greek. It was published in 1526, and over the next ten years 50,000 copies were smuggled into England. Tyndale was betrayed, captured, and in 1536 killed for the crime of publishing the New Testament in English.
Although his body was burned at the stake, Tyndale had unleashed an enormous demand for Bibles in “the vulgar English tongue.” A number of translations were printed, including the Bishops’ Bible and the immensely popular Geneva Bible, which was the Bible Shakespeare read and the Bible Puritans carried to New England.
Elizabeth I, who reigned from 1558 to 1603, sought to bring peace among religious factions. But more importantly for our story, varied creative forces came together then to form the most splendid age in English literature. James VI of Scotland was a product of this season of creativity. When James VI became king of all Great Britain and Ireland in 1603, he called a conference to try to settle differences between Anglicans and Puritans. Out of this conference came the decision to create a new translation of the Bible.
[SNIP]
The King James Bible is the best-selling English-language book of all time. It has been in print continuously for 400 years. It has helped form our language; it has given context to our literature; it has inspired our music; and for centuries it was the one book a family would own and read before all others
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
you post a false, unattested statement from some random website that provides no proof for it that it was ever uttered (and by whom it was uttered is also unknown)
when one believes this unaccounted, unfactual, non-historical statement, is it accompanied by a "burning in the bosom" or was it with a "seeker stone" buried in a hat?
That's a good thing - what I'm after is fact, not unsubstantiated opinion. And I'm still waiting for something other than opinion from you regarding the alleged statement.
What Tyndale did DO was make the plowboy know more Bible then any Papist. And that IS a fact.
That sounds more like an opinion. The Church read Scripture in the Liturgy, used artwork to convey the teachings of the Bible, and had translations of the Bible in the vulgar tongues for 1500 years before Tyndale came along.
“Merely translating the Scriptures didn’t get one into trouble — St. Bede the Venerable did it, for example — until later on, when it resulted in suspicions of Protestant sympathies. The Church’s objection to Wycliffe and (moreso) Tyndale was the editorial comments they included in their translations.”
Not correct. Prior to Wycliffe, the Catholic Church didn’t object to translating the Bible. However, Wycliffe’s translation proved to be deadly to the medieval church. And it was dangerous, not because of the notes, but because of the text.
In the early 1400s, the Catholic Church in England pushed thru a law forbidding translating the Bible into English without permission from the Catholic Church - which never came. Punishment included death.
Nor was the Catholic objection based just on notes.
“Moreover, Butler explains elsewhere, it is far safer for the laity to have the scriptures expounded to them by the clergy, than to read them themselves they will thus obtain the true meaning of the passages studied.
‘St. Jerome says, that hearing is a better manner of obtaining knowledge of holy scripture than reading, for the way of hearing is better, safer, and quicker, than the way of reading, and should be followed because it is the more immediate way; therefore the way of reading ought to be forbidden, and the way of hearing frequently recommended. But perchance someone will object, that though to hear is better: yet nevertheless, it would be good for the common people to understand a little? To this, I say, that reading is more liable to lead to error than hearing.’
Friar Palmer also made the teaching office of the clergy the chief reason for denying biblical translations to the laity.
‘Nothing should be revealed to those who are not capable of understanding it: but these lay people are not capable of understanding many of the difficulties of holy scripture: therefore these matters at least should not be written in our vulgar tongue. ... Nothing should be had in the vulgar tongue which might be an occasion and cause of error to the simple: for the mass of the people are led into error very easily; but many parts of scripture, if translated into our vulgar tongue, would be wrongly understood and lead simple people into error; for if the difficulty of scripture led Arius, Sabellius, Nestorius, Frontinus and other heretics into error, therefore even more would it mislead simple people. ... For it is foolish to be scrupulous about what can without peril be ignored; and much of holy scripture may be ignored by the simple without peril, because it surpasses their understanding. ... Some things are too hard and difficult and lofty for simple people: even as Paul the apostle wrote: Even as babes in Christ, I have fed you with milk and not with meat. ... Those things needful for salvation, and no other part of holy scripture, should be translated for them.’
While Butler’s principal argument was the subordination of the laity in conformity to the order of the celestial hierarchy, his final one was very similar: the function and subordination of the laity in the body of Christ.
‘Sixthly and lastly I argue against the aforesaid assertion from the ground of the co-ordination of the mystical body of Christ. ... If the whole body were the eye, where is the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where smelling? But now, saith Paul, God hath made members as it pleased Him. ... All the faithful have been born again in the sacrament of baptism and have become members of Christ. Now consider then the members of Christ, as compared to the hands, back, chest, etc. as A; and consider all the members as compared to the eyes in the said body, as B. And it is argued, that the separate members signified by A are not capable of an action proper to the eyes: but to read letters is an action proper to the eyes: therefore, according to the words of the apostle, they cannot compete with those members signified by B. But the whole mass of the Christian laity is composed of the members signified by A: therefore, on the ground of the co-ordination of the mystical body of Christ, it follows, according to the mind of the apostle, that the common people ought by no means to read the text of holy scripture. This is confirmed because, granting the argument of the apostle, if the whole body were the eye, where would be the hearing, or where the foot: if the feet, (as it were, the common people,) ought to know the law [of God], then the feet would be eyes, and feet and eyes would have the same function, contrary to the apostle in both particulars. Therefore that assertion is contrary to the apostle: and I beg your reverences also, that you would judge this practice by the law of reason: now would it be useful and convenient to offer a book to a foot, or a toe of the foot, to read? And if you decide that it would not be: yet is not this in fact what the advocates of the aforesaid toes would here attempt to do, under pretext of zeal for souls? I beg all the toes to decline such an absurdity. For if a foot, or the toe of a foot, should read like the eye, then the mystical body of Christ would be deprived of meaning. ... And as to how these members of the mystical body of Christ ought to be nourished, Chrysostom, a famous Greek doctor, teaches ... showing that the priest ... is like a doctor visiting a sick man; he first inquires about the stomach, and hastens to cure that, for if the stomach is sound, then the whole body is strong. Thus if the whole priesthood is sound, the church flourishes: and if it is corrupt, the faith of all withers. And he adds, that as the stomach receives the food into itself, and disperses it throughout the whole body, even so priests should receive the knowledge of the scriptures of God, and meditate upon them, and minister them to a sound people. And as through the ministration of the stomach each member receives nourishment, and converts it according to the nature of the member, ... so, he says, in the Church, all priests receive the word, and each converts it according to his own heart. ... Through which pronouncement it is clear that the priesthood alone should drink of the springs of doctrine for the whole people, and from them, as from the stomach, they should receive nourishment.’
Closely connected with this argument, that it is not the function of the laity to read the Bible, is the broader one of the mysteriousness of scripture, and the insufficiency of the human mind to deal with it. Sometimes this is connected with the old argument as to the relative value of the four meanings of holy scripture, and whether a translation would convey other than the literal meaning.”
http://www.bible-researcher.com/wyclif5.html
Other objections can be seen by reading Tyndale’s response to them:
” They will say haply, the scripture requireth a pure mind and a quiet mind; and therefore the lay-man, because he is altogether cumbered with worldly business, cannot understand them. If that be the cause, then it is a plain case that our prelates understand not the scriptures themselves: for no layman is so tangled with worldly business as they are. The great things of the world are ministered by them; neither do the lay-people any great thing, but at their assignment. ‘If the scripture were in the mother tongue,’ they will say, ‘then would the lay-people understand it, every man after his own ways.’ Wherefore serveth the curate, but to teach him the right way? Wherefore were the holy days made, but that the people should come and learn? Are ye not abominable schoolmasters, in that ye take so great wages, if ye will not teach? If ye would teach, how could ye do it so well, and with so great profit, as when the lay-people have the scripture before them in their mother tongue? For then should they see, by the order of the text, whether thou jugglest or not: and then would they believe it, because it is the scripture of God, though thy living be never so abominable. Where now, because your living and your preaching are so contrary, and because they grope out in every sermon your open and manifest lies, and smell your unsatiable covetousness, they believe you not when you preach truth. But, alas! the curates themselves (for the most part) wot no more what the new or old Testament meaneth, than do the Turks: neither know they of any more than that they read at mass, matins, and evensong, which yet they understand not: neither care they, but even to mumble up so much every day, as the pie and popinjay speak, they wot not what, to fill their bellies withal. If they will not let the lay-man have the word of God in his mother tongue, yet let the priests have it; which for a great part of them do understand no Latin at all, but sing, and say, and patter all day, with the lips only, that which the heart understandeth not.
Christ commandeth to search the scriptures. John 5. Though that miracles bare record unto his doctrine, yet desired he no faith to be given either to his doctrine, or to his miracles, without record of the scripture.
When Paul preached, Acts 17 the other searched the scriptures daily, whether they were as he alleged them. Why shall not I likewise see, whether it be the scripture that thou allegest? Yea, why shall I not see the scripture, and the circumstances, and what goeth before and after; that I may know whether thine interpretation be the right sense, or whether thou jugglest, and drawest the scripture violently unto thy carnal and fleshly purpose; or whether thou be about to teach me, or to deceive me?
Christ saith, that there shall come false prophets in his name, and say that they themselves are Christ; that is, they shall so preach Christ that men must believe in them, in their holiness, and things of their imagination, without God’s word: yea, and that Against-Christ, or Antichrist, that shall come, is nothing but such false prophets, that shall juggle with the scripture, and beguile the people with false interpretations, as all the false prophets, scribes, and Pharisees did in the old testament. How shall I know whether ye are that Against-Christ, or false prophets, or no, seeing ye will not let me see how ye allege the scriptures? Christ saith, “By their deeds ye shall know them.” Now when we look on your deeds, we see that ye are all sworn together, and have separated yourselves from the lay-people, and have a several kingdom among yourselves, and several laws of your own making; wherewith ye violently bind the lay-people, that never consented unto the making of them. A thousand things forbid ye, which Christ made free; and dispense with them again for money: neither is there any exception at all, but lack of money. Ye have a secret council by yourselves.”
http://www.godrules.net/library/tyndale/19tyndale7.htm
I’d also point out that prior to Wycliffe, there was no complete translation of the Bible into English, and I don’t think there was a complete New Testament translated into English.
Tyndale's 1526 translation of the NT had no notes.
Ref Tyndale’s statement about the ploughboy:
“Not long after, Master Tyndale happened to be in the company of a certain divine, recounted for a learned man, and, in communing and disputing with him, he drove him to that issue, that the said great doctor burst out into these blasphemous words, “We were better to be without God’s laws than the pope’s.” Master Tyndale, hearing this, full of godly zeal, and not bearing that blasphemous saying, replied, “I defy the pope, and all his laws;” and added, “If God spared him life, ere many years he would cause a boy that driveth the plough to know more of the Scripture than he did.”
http://www.ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/fox112.htm
You might not like the source, but there can be no question but that Tyndale wanted the common man to be able to read or hear the scriptures in plain English, and the Catholic Church opposed it.
See post 43 for WHY the Catholic Church wanted to keep scripture out of the hands of commoners.
“That sounds more like an opinion. The Church read Scripture in the Liturgy, used artwork to convey the teachings of the Bible, and had translations of the Bible in the vulgar tongues for 1500 years before Tyndale came along. “
Actually, very little scripture was used in the liturgy, artwork is hardly the same as reading God’s Word or hearing it in your own tongue, and there were no complete translations of the Bible into English except for Wycliffe’s.
The question was if the Catholic Church could control all access to God’s Word, or if men could read it for themselves. And the problem for the Catholic Church was that it was hard to sell indulgences to a populace that had read the word of God.
“In March 1563, Foxe published the first English edition of the Actes and Monuments from the press of John Day...
...Foxe’s great contribution, however, was his compilation of the English martyrs from the period of the Lollards through the persecution of Mary I. Here Foxe had primary sources of all kinds to draw on: episcopal registers, reports of trials, and the testimony of eyewitnesses, a remarkable range of sources for English historical writing of the period.[20]
Nevertheless, Foxe often treated this material casually, and any reader “must be prepared to meet plenty of small errors and inconsistencies.”[21] Furthermore, Foxe did not hold to later notions of neutrality or objectivity. He made unambiguous side glosses on his text, such as “Mark the apish pageants of these popelings” and “This answer smelleth of forging and crafty packing.”[22]
The material contained in the work is generally accurate, although selectively presented. Sometimes he copied documents verbatim; sometimes he adapted them to his own use.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxe%27s_Book_of_Martyrs
I don't know how much you consider very little. 2-3 readings per liturgy, over a period 1500 years, amounts to a lot of plowboys hearing Scripture.
artwork is hardly the same as reading God’s Word or hearing it in your own tongue
I didn't say it was the only way of getting God's Word. It was supplemental to hearing the Word in the Liturgy, especially for those incapable of reading it for themselves. That's what all the stained glass in the old Catholic churches is about.
there were no complete translations of the Bible into English except for Wycliffe’s.
What was the European literacy rate when Tyndale completed his translation? What percentage were English speakers? To make the claim that Tyndale got more Scripture to plowboys than through the whole history of the Church throughout the world, there needs to be some understanding of those statistics.
The question was if the Catholic Church could control all access to God’s Word, or if men could read it for themselves.
No, the question was of making sure translations were done accurately and stayed true. Also, of the people could read, what percentage were capable of reading it in English but were incapable of reading it in Latin?
And the problem for the Catholic Church was that it was hard to sell indulgences to a populace that had read the word of God.
That's a myth.
Vladimir - you have a lot better understanding of medieval Church history than do I, so I’d appreciate any comments you might have on this. Thanks.
Do we have any proof from Tyndale or anyone contemporary that this is what Tyndale said? Instead of someone writing about this a hundred+ years later.
Reading was not an option for the majority who were illiterate (and why? because work was needed on the fields etc. and educating was taking someone out of this area, so many parents did not do this, or if they wanted their kids to be educated they made them clerics)
Artwork WAS the method in which people would talk about the works of Christ, there were travelling itinerant friars etc. and passion plays to tell the deeply religious populace about their faith.
This was also how history was relayed down through the ages, with information passed
You wrote:
“Actually, very little scripture was used in the liturgy,”
False. I attend the old Mass. It is drawn from and makes allusions to scripture from beginning to end.
“artwork is hardly the same as reading God’s Word or hearing it in your own tongue,”
People had not only artwork, but the scriptures in their own tongue long before Tyndale.
“and there were no complete translations of the Bible into English except for Wycliffe’s.”
As far as we know. There were many partial translations, however.
“The question was if the Catholic Church could control all access to God’s Word, or if men could read it for themselves.”
That is not the question. The question is, “Who is the appointed guardian of scripture?” It must be the Church. It certainly can’t be Protestants.
“And the problem for the Catholic Church was that it was hard to sell indulgences to a populace that had read the word of God.”
The Church never sold indulgences. And it seems that Protestant tele-evangelists have no problem selling Jerusalem holy rocks and Jordan “holy water” to “Bible reading” Protestants.
“Not correct. Prior to Wycliffe, the Catholic Church didn’t object to translating the Bible. However, Wycliffe’s translation proved to be deadly to the medieval church. And it was dangerous, not because of the notes, but because of the text.”
YOU are not correct. There was nothing in Wycliffe’s translation itself that was a problem. It was the notes and usage by Lollards that was the issue. That’s why his translation was never banned, but restricted to those who had their copies examined and been issued a permit. We have copies of these permits in archives today. There was nothing the translation itself that was dangerous - which is actually surprising since Wycliffe was a nut (i.e. he professed a completely wacky heresies).
And here’s the proof of what I am saying:
“The vernacular Bible had been Wycliffe’s great gift to posterity, but he was by no means alone in translating the Scriptures,* nor even himself perhaps the author of the “Wycliffe Bible,” though the dissemination of the Bible in the vulgar tongue did, it is true, lie very near his heart.* There is no reason to believe that the mediaeval Church forbade all use of the Scriptures in English. Arundel only postulated that the translation should be authorized, and copies were to be found fairly frequently in the hands of the orthodox, such as Thomas of Gloucester, persecutor of Lollards,4 Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, patron of monks and scholars, and, amongst those of less exalted degree, the Bristolian, John Bount, benefactor of friars.6” (England in the later Middle Ages By Kenneth Hotham Vickers, page 336)
And then there’s this to think about:
I cannot but think that an unbiassed mind which will reflect upon the matter must see how impossible it was for a poor persecuted sect like the Lollards, for the writings of which frequent and rigid searches were made, to produce the Bibles now ascribed to them. Many of these copies, as we may see for ourselves, are written with great care and exactness, and illuminated with coloured borders executed by skilful artists. These must surely have been the productions of freer hands than the followers of Wyclif ever were allowed to have in England. The learned editors of the so-called Wyclifite Scriptures, Messrs. Forshall and Madden, apparently hardly appreciated the force of this when they wrote:
“The new copies passed into the hands of all classes of the people. Even the Sovereign himself and the princes of the blood royal did not disdain to possess them. The volumes were in many instances executed in a costly manner, and were usually written upon vellum by experienced scribes. This implies not merely the value which was set upon the Word of God, but also that the scribes found a reward for their labours among the wealthier part of the community.”1
This is undoubtedly the case, and it is to be explained only on the supposition that the English Bible thus widely circulated was in truth the authorised catbolic version, and was in the possession of its various owners with the thorough approval of the ecclesiastical authorities. Is it likely that men of position, of unquestioned orthodoxy and of undoubted hostility to Lollard aims and opinions, would have cherished the possession of copies of a Wyclifite Bible? When we find, for example, that a finely-executed vellum folio copy of the Scriptures, with illuminated borders, was not only the property of King Henry VI.—a monarch, by the way, of saintly life and “enthusiastic in the cause of religion “—but that he bestowed it upon the monks of the London Charterhouse, we cannot but acknowledge that this must have been known as the perfectly orthodox translation of the English Church.
The same version is found to have had a place in the royal library of Henry VII. In this copy not only is the excellent character of the workmanship altogether inconsistent with the notion that it is from the pen of some poor hunted adherent of Wyclif, but a leaf supplied at the beginning, in a late fifteenth century hand, is illuminated with the royal arms, the portcullis and red and white Tudor roses. Moreover, curiously enough, this border surrounds the prologue, “Five and Twenty Books” so freely attributed to Wyclif.
A third copy of the English Scriptures—the veiy manuscript now displayed in the British Museum as Wyclif’s translation, to which I referred at the commencement of this paper—formerly belonged to Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester, the firm friend and ally of that uncompromising opponent of Lollard opinions, Archbishop Arundel. Indeed, the inventory of the Duke of Gloucester’s goods,, now in the Record Office, shows that, besides “the Bible in English in two big volumes bound in red leather,” he possessed in his by no means extensive library an English Psalter and two books of the Gospels in English.1 Another copy of this version of the New Testament was the property, and ha& the autograph, of Humphrey—” the good Duke Humphrey “—of Gloucester, the generous benefactor of St. Albans, and the constant friend of its abbot, Whethamstede, whose hostility to Lollard doctrines is well known.
Another point which must not be overlooked is the good catholic company in which this version of the Scriptures, or parts of it, are occasionally found. Thus, in a volume in the Museum collection we find not only the lessons from the Old Testament read in the Mass book, together with the table of Epistles and Gospels, but a tract by Richard Rolle, “of amendinge of mannes life, or 1 the rule of lifing,’” and another on contemplative life and love of God.1 Another copy of The Book of Tobit, in the later version, which is followed by the translated Magnificat and Benedictus, has also in the volume some tracts or meditations, and what is called the “Pistle of the Holy Sussanne.” With this is bound, possibly at a later date, Richard Rolle of Hampole’s Graft of Deying. The catholic origin of this volume is borne out fully by the fact that it belonged to the abbey of Barking in Essex. Indeed, it appears to have been written by one of the nuns named Matilda Hayle, as the note hte liber constat Matilde Hayle de Berkinge is in the same hand as the body of the book, which, by the way, subsequently belonged to another nun named Mary Hastynges.*
A copy of the English Bible, now, at Lambeth,
1 UaadowM MS., 466. ‘Add. MS., 10,696.
formerly belonged to Bishop Bonner, that Malleus hereticorum, and another, now at Cambridge, to William Weston, the Prior of St. John’s, Clerkenwell.
In like manner a copy of the English translation of the New Testament, now attributed to Wyclif, among the manuscripts of the Duke of Northumberland at Alnwick, was originally, and probably not long after the volume was written, the property of another religious house. On the last page is the name of Katerina Methwold, Monaclia, Katherine Methwold, the nun.
There are, moreover, instances of the English Bible—the production, the secret production, of the Lollard scribes—that perilous piece of property to possess, as we are asked to believe—there are instances of this being bequeathed by wills publicly proved in the public -courts of the Bishop. Others, not less publicly, are bestowed upon churches or given to religious houses. It is, of course, obvious that this could never have been done had the volume so left been the work of Wyclif or of his followers, for it would then indeed have been, as a modern writer describes the Wyclifite books, “a perilous piece of property.” Thus, before the close of the fourteenth century, namely, in 1394, a copy of the Gospels in English was bequeathed to the chantry of St. Nicholas, in the Church of Holy Trinity, York, by John Hopton, Chaplain there.1 Fancy what this means on the theory that the English Scriptures were the work of ‘Wyclifite hands 1 It means nothing less than that a catholic priest publicly bequeaths, in a will proved in his Bishop’s court, to a catholic church, for the use of catholic people, the proscribed work of some member of an heretical sect.
Again, in 1404, Philip Baunt, a Bristol merchant, leaves by will a copy of the Gospels in English to a priest named John Canterbury, attached to St. Mary Redcliffe’s Church. And—not to mention many cases in wills of the period, where it is probable that the Bible left was an English copy— there is an instance of a bequest of such a Bible in the will of a priest, William Revetour, of York, in 1446. The most interesting gift of an English New Testament, as a precious and pious donation to the Church, is that of the copy now in the possession of Lord Ashburnham,1 which in 1517 was given to the Convent of our Lady of Syon by Lady Danvers. On the last page is the following dedication :—
“Good .... Mr. Confessor of Sion with his brethren. Dame Anne Danvers widowe, sometyme wyffe to Sir William Danvers, knyght (whose soul God assoyle) hatbe gevyn this present Booke unto Mastre Confessor and his Brethren enclosed in Syon, entendyng therby not oonly the honor laude and preyse to Almighty God but also that she the moore tenderly may be committed unto the meroy of God.
1 Aehbornham MS., Appendix xix. (No. 156 in Forsball and Madden). The text of this MS. Iu printed for Mr. Lea Wilson by Pickering, in 1848.
The aforseid Dame Anne Danvers hathe delyvered this booke by the hands of her son Thomas Danvers on Mydde Lent Sunday in the 8th yere of our lord King Henry VIII. and in the yere of our Lord God a M. fyve hundred and seventeene. Deo gracias.”
To all who know what Syon was: how for a century past it had represented the very pink of pious orthodoxy and was the centre of the devotional life of the period; how the practical piety of its sisters was fostered by the highest ascetical teaching of Richard Whytford and others; to all who understand this it must appear as nothing less than the height of absurdity to suppose that any lady would insult its inmates by offering for their acceptance an heretical version of the English Bible.
And, whilst on the subject of Syon, attention must be called to another very important piece of evidence for the existence of a Catholic version of the Scriptures. It is contained in a devotional book, written probably not later than the year 1450 for the use of these sisters of Syon, and printed “ at the desyre and instaunce of the worshypfull and devoute lady abbesse1 of the worshypf ul Monastery of Syon and the revendre fadre in Gods general confessowre of the same” about the year 1530. It is called The Myrroure of our Lady very necessary for religious persons, and it is practically a translation of their Church services into English to enable the nuns the
better to understand their daily ecclesiastical duties. The point to which attention is directed is the following paragraph in the “ first prologue,” written, remember, not later than the middle of the fifteenth century: “Of psalms I have drawn (i.e., translated) but fewe,” says the author, “for ye may have them of Richard Hampoules drawinge, and out of Englygske bibles if ye have lysence thereto.”1 It is not very likely that these pious sisters would have been able to get their psalms from Wyclifite versions.
It is clear that the compiler of this book of devotions did in fact obtain them on imprimatur of authority for the translations of various quotations from Scripture in the volume. He writes :—
“And for as much as it is forbidden under pain of cursing that any man should have or translate any text of Holy Scripture into English without licence of the Bishop diocesan; and in diverse places of your service are such tests of Holy Scripture. Therefore I asked and have licence of our Bishop to translate such things into English to your ghostly comfort and profit, so both our conscience in translating and yours in the having may be more sure and olear in our Lord’s worship, which may it keep us in His grace and bring us to His bliss.” Amen.’
1 “The Myrroure of oure Ladye” (ed. J. II. Blunt), E. Eng. Text 800., p. 8.
‘Ibid., p. 71. The editor of The Myrroure upon this passage notes: “This reference to English Bibles seems to imply that they were very common in the middle of the fifteenth century. These may have been the copies of the Wyclifite version, but it seems unlikely that the Sisters would have received ‘licence’ to read these, especially as • de quibus cavendum est’ is written against some works of Wyclif in the Library Catalogue preserved at C.C. Coll. Cambridge.” After quotingthe Oxford Constitution of 1408, and Lyndewood’s Gloss, Mr. Blunt add*: “As his words were written about the same time aa those to which the note refers, they seem to corroborate the evidence given in the Mirror, that in the earlier half of the fifteenth century English Bible* ware freely used by the people.” (Notes on The Myrrourt, p. 310).
To pass to another point—it has been remarked upon as somewhat strange that in Wyclif’s sermons, which seem to have been written at the close of his life, the Scripture quotations are in no case made from the version now declared to be his. A preacher, of course, may have turned the Latin into English at the moment, but in his case this is hardly likely, if, as we are given to understand, the popularising of his reputed version was the great object of his life. Moreover, what may well have been the case in spoken discourses would scarcely have been adhered to in written and formal sermons. Beyond this the same is true of every work reputed to be WycliPs. In no instance does he quote his own supposed version. On the other hand it is at least most remarkable that the Commentary upon the Apocalypse, formerly attributed to “Wyclif, but which is now acknowledged not to be from his pen, has the ordinary version for its text.
Further, it is not without significance that Bishop Pecock in his “Repressor,” a work written ostensibly against the position of the Lollards, and their claim to make the Sacred Scripture their sole and sufficient guide in all things, not only uses what is now called the Wyclifite version of the Bible in all his quotations, but throughout his work evidently takes for granted that the lay-folk generally had the Scriptures with authority, and nowhere blames the fact. Moreover, he is careful to explain that he only speaks of the Lollards as “Biblemen,” because of their wish to found every law of faith and morals on the Written Word.
All of this is found in Gasquet’s Old English Bible.
Did you miss it? THE WYCLIFFE BIBLE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN HIS, BUT MAY HAVE BEEN AN ENGLISH CATHOLIC VERSION PASSED OFF AS HIS!!! Even Wycliffe didn’t use his version for sermons!!!
“I don’t know how much you consider very little. 2-3 readings per liturgy, over a period 1500 years, amounts to a lot of plowboys hearing Scripture.”
Hmmm...a 1500 year old ploughboy? However, Pre-Vatican 2 covered 1% of the OT and 16% of the New Testament. I’m underwhelmed.
http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm
“What was the European literacy rate when Tyndale completed his translation? What percentage were English speakers?”
Good enough that he sold everything he could print.
“No, the question was of making sure translations were done accurately and stayed true.”
Not true. I have pointed out and backed up that it was a conscious decision to AVOID letting the common man read or know scripture. This isn’t open to dispute. Church officials of the time argued that a common man couldn’t understand the scripture unless a Priest taught it to him.
“It’s not about liking the source or not — what is the attestation? Foxe was written in 1553 and here makes a statement — but who has recited it to the author?”
I’m sorry that Foxe, writing within 50 years of the event, and within 30 of Tyndale’s death, didn’t make a recording or provide a scholarly thesis. Foxe had ample sources, including those who knew Tyndale. And Tyndale DID write about how he needed to make the scripture clear to the common man, and not have it restricted to church officials.
“Do we have any proof from Tyndale or anyone contemporary that this is what Tyndale said? Instead of someone writing about this a hundred+ years later.”
Foxe wrote in 1563, although he started work earlier. Tyndale died in 1536.
“Reading was not an option for the majority who were illiterate (and why? because work was needed on the fields etc. and educating was taking someone out of this area, so many parents did not do this, or if they wanted their kids to be educated they made them clerics)”
So...why did the Catholic Church try to keep it out of the hands of those who WERE literate? Surely you don’t argue that the Catholic Church was worried about Bibles falling into the hands of those who could NOT read?
“It is drawn from and makes allusions to scripture from beginning to end.”
Thrilling. That is NOT the same as reading God’s word. Why did the Apostles - fishermen - know scripture by heart? Why could they quote it in 35 AD? Here is a hint - it wasn’t because they saw pictures...
“People had not only artwork, but the scriptures in their own tongue long before Tyndale.”
In England, the first full translation was done by Wycliffe and his friends. The next was Tyndale’s. There was no complete translation into English before that - for the first 900+ years of the Catholic Church in England.
“The question is, “Who is the appointed guardian of scripture?” It must be the Church. It certainly can’t be Protestants.”
Now THAT is an honest response. Who must protect scripture from being read by commoners? The Catholic Church. Not a boast I would want to make, but it is honest!
“The Church never sold indulgences.”
Don’t be silly.
“There was nothing in Wycliffe’s translation itself that was a problem. It was the notes and usage by Lollards that was the issue.”
Wrong. And as I pointed out, Tyndale’s NT had no notes - but it was opposed by the Catholic Church. And don’t give some garbage about mistranslating unless you are prepared to back it up with actual mistranslations’. Thomas More tried, and failed miserably.
Good point -- I mistook the timeline for Tyndale as that for Wyclife
Foxe had ample sources, including those who knew Tyndale. -- yet how come these are not cited as proof that this anecdote was even real? Why not just say "xx heard this said in his presence?"
And Tyndale DID write about -- be that as it may, Tyndale did NOT write about this particular anecdote, which considering the availability of other commentaries by him is glaring
Mr. Rogers: So...why did the Catholic Church try to keep it out of the hands of those who WERE literate?
Because they didn't.
If you were literate in those days, you were mostly a clergyman or a noble (and that too not all Nobels).
If you were literate in those days, your learning was in Latin, not in your vernacular tongue. Even if you read other books in vernacular tongues, you would still know Latin as that was what the majority of books were written in (case in point, Isaac Newton's works like Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, published in 1687 were in Latin
If you were educated, you knew Latin and you could freely read any Bible in the Churches (the Bibles, like other books had had to be hand-written and were tremendously expensive)
The Church objected to unauthorized (read Gnostic etc. writings) translations which
All 6000 copies. As compared to 1500 years of scripture teaching by the Church. The claim that Tyndale brought more scripture to the plowboy than the Church looks like it is on pretty shaky ground.
In England, the first full translation was done by Wycliffe and his friends. The next was Tyndale’s. There was no complete translation into English before that - for the first 900+ years of the Catholic Church in England.
Tyndale didn't make a full translation either. And the 6000 copies published only contained a portion of his partial translation.
Shaky ground, indeed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.