I seem to have conflated Wycliffe and Tyndale in my opening post. (Image of Wycliffe's Bible shown at right.)
I wrote: "The first English Bible was not published until the time of Wycliffe in the 14th century. Wycliffe received martyrdom for his troubles, and the papist authorities sought to destroy the copies of the Bible that he printed."
The Wycliffe Bible was hunted by authorities, but while the papists dug up Wycliffe's bones and burnt them, it was technically Wycliffe's assistant Purvey (who completed the work) who ended up being martyred, Wycliffe himself dying apparently of natural causes (1384). Printed is also not be quite the right word. For, you see, the Wycliffe Bible had to be published by handwriting. Printed suggests mechanical reproduction.
Tyndale, on the other hand, provided the first truly printed English Bible. He was martyred in 1536 by strangling. His body was then, like that of Wycliffe his predecessor, burnt (in the case of Tyndale it was burnt at a stake).
The followers of Wycliffe, known as the Lollards, are a fascinating case study for those who vainly imagine that reformation of the Western church started in 1517 with a German monk complaining about abuse of indulgences.
Nevertheless, I somehow managed mentally to conflate Wycliffe and Tyndale in my opening post, much to my shame, and so I hereby publicly retract that erroneous passage in favor of:
"The first English Bible was not published until the time of Wycliffe/Purvey in the 14th century.
I'm not sure whether Mr. Bellisario will permit correction of my opening post, the deadline having past. Nevertheless, I hope he will, for I have no interest in spreading further the unsubstantiated claim that Wycliffe was martyred or the misleading claim that the Wycliffe Bible was mechanically printed (when, in fact, it was copied by hand).
One reader also noted that I had made the following simpler typo (shown corrected):
Usually the objection is more practical, though: how can we convince someone of
Mr. Bellisario has approved correction of that error, and so I have updated the post accordingly. These things go to show that, even with the aid of a computer, I am fallible. Thus, no one should trust what I have to say. The Scriptures, on the other hand, being the Word of God are infallible and inerrant. Therefore, we properly use them as our rule (canon).
-TurretinFan
4 comments:
Well,
TF,
I will not take that with a grain of salt but with the entire contents of the salt shaker!
Blessings be upon your ministry my friend!
Pro 10:22 The blessing of the LORD makes rich, and he adds no sorrow with it.
King David did get it right!
Psa 39:1 To the choirmaster: to Jeduthun. A Psalm of David. I said, "I will guard my ways, that I may not sin with my tongue; I will guard my mouth with a muzzle, so long as the wicked are in my presence."
Psa 39:2 I was mute and silent; I held my peace to no avail, and my distress grew worse.
Psa 39:3 My heart became hot within me. As I mused, the fire burned; then I spoke with my tongue:
Psa 39:4 "O LORD, make me know my end and what is the measure of my days; let me know how fleeting I am!
Psa 39:5 Behold, you have made my days a few handbreadths, and my lifetime is as nothing before you. Surely all mankind stands as a mere breath! Selah
God sent him Nathan to show him his end!:::>
<....2Sa 7:10 And I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, so that they may dwell in their own place and be disturbed no more. And violent men shall afflict them no more, as formerly,
2Sa 7:11 from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel. And I will give you rest from all your enemies. Moreover, the LORD declares to you that the LORD will make you a house.
2Sa 7:12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom.
2Sa 7:13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.
While you are making corrections you might want to correct the erroneous impression you give by claiming that Tyndale's Bible was the first English translation of the Scriptures. I seem to remember from my Early English Literature classes something like this:
Sothlice ut eode se sawere his saed to sawenne. And tha tha he seow, sumum hie feollon with weg, and fuglas comon and acton tha. Sothlice sumu feollon on staenihte, thaer hit naefde micle eorthan, and hraedlice up sprungon, for thaem the hie maefdon thaere eorthan diepan; sothlice, up sprungente sunnan, hie adrugodon and forscruncon, for thaem the hie naefdon wyrtruman. Sothlice sumu feollon on thornas, and tha thornas weoxon, and forthrysmdon tha. Sumu sothlice feollon on gode eorthan, and seldon waestm, sum hundfealdne, sum siextigfealdne, sum thritigfealdne.
Anyone who has read Old English would know that this is The Parable of the Sower at Mt. 13:3-8 taken from the Wessex Gospels circa 990 AD.
TF, there were a number of English translations of the Bible (all Catholic at that) predating Tyndale’s mediocre and error- filled translation by hundreds of years. I would ask that you give St. Bede, Alfred the Great, Caedmon, Aelfric and others their proper due.
The Catholic Church has never kept the Bible out of the hands of the people or suppressed translations from being made of it; only erroneous and heretical translations of the Scriptures have been censored to keep such books from misleading the faithful.
Other than the "papist" epithet, I am enjoying both papers.
Paul, I think you posted your comment twice. I've published only the second copy.
PH wrote: "While you are making corrections you might want to correct the erroneous impression you give by claiming that Tyndale's Bible was the first English translation of the Scriptures."
a) Wycliffe/Purvey not Tyndale had the first complete English translation.
b) As my opening statement put it: "For example, while the “Venerable” Bede is said to have provided an early partial translation of the Bible (perhaps only John’s Gospel) into English, and there are various other partial translations (for example, a translation of at least some of the Psalms in Alfred’s day, and perhaps by his authority) that are believed to have been made, they were incomplete and poorly distributed." Thus, I acknowledge that Wycliffe was not the first to translate Scriptures.
PH wrote: "I seem to remember from my Early English Literature classes something like this: Sothlice ut eode se sawere his saed to sawenne. And tha tha he seow, sumum hie feollon with weg, and fuglas comon and acton tha. Sothlice sumu feollon on staenihte, thaer hit naefde micle eorthan, and hraedlice up sprungon, for thaem the hie maefdon thaere eorthan diepan; sothlice, up sprungente sunnan, hie adrugodon and forscruncon, for thaem the hie naefdon wyrtruman. Sothlice sumu feollon on thornas, and tha thornas weoxon, and forthrysmdon tha. Sumu sothlice feollon on gode eorthan, and seldon waestm, sum hundfealdne, sum siextigfealdne, sum thritigfealdne."
You must have a fabulous memory to be able to reproduce Old English like that. :)
PH wrote: "Anyone who has read Old English would know that this is The Parable of the Sower at Mt. 13:3-8 taken from the Wessex Gospels circa 990 AD."
Pretty nifty, eh?
PH wrote: "TF, there were a number of English translations of the Bible (all Catholic at that) predating Tyndale’s mediocre and error- filled translation by hundreds of years."
a) They weren't "Catholic" they were English.
b) Calling pre-Schism English Christians "Catholic" is anachronistic.
c) Wycliffe preceded Tyndale by quite a bit too. I don't know if you made a similar mistake to my own here.
d) Wycliffe's was the first complete translation, as far as we know, and certainly (as much as we can be certain about anything in English medieval history) the first complete translation that was significantly dissemenated.
e) Both Wycliffe's and Tyndale's translations had errors -- Wycliffe's probably had more because (i) his translation was being transmitted manually (not by printing), and (ii) his translation was from the Vulgate edition, which itself had errors. But the errors are not really that significant, for the most part. Criticizing their translations for errors as a reason for burning them doesn't explain why the Vulgate wasn't burned.
PH wrote: "I would ask that you give St. Bede, Alfred the Great, Caedmon, Aelfric and others their proper due. "
I did explicitly mention those of Alfred and Bede in my post. I would have gone into the matter in more depth, but it is a tangential issue, and I had already pretty much exhausted the word limit.
PH wrote: "The Catholic Church has never kept the Bible out of the hands of the people or suppressed translations from being made of it;"
a) If your point is that those who tried to keep the Bible in the vulgar tongue out of the hand of the common people did not have the Catholic/Apostolic faith, I would agree. We also deny that Trent maintained the Catholic/Apostolic faith. But it is indisputable that the first printed English Bible was made by a non-papist, and that the first published (widely copied) English Bible was made by a non-papist. Furthermore, it is indisputable that the first complete printed English Bible by papists was not until the 17th century, with the publication of the Douay-Rheims Bible.
b) "...only erroneous and heretical translations of the Scriptures have been censored to keep such books from misleading the faithful."
a) Was there some non-papist English translation after 1300 that was not censored? If not, this looks rather like a pretense.
b) Furthermore, the DRB has errors (and was not censored for them).
c) The "heresy" issue begs the question.
-TurretinFan
Jew and Gentile, when they write out of their own fleshly soulish mind, they bear the same fruit.
Jew and Gentile, dead in trespasses and sins made alive in Christ by the Hands of Our Heavenly Father through the Sanctifying Work of the Spirit, when they write out of Their Minds and Hearts bear a striking Present Presence of the fruit of Christ!
Hmmmmm,
Fruit, fruit did I say? Yes, sweet, pure, fresh FRUIT.
Jew and Gentile did I say? Yes.
Joh 17:18 As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.
Joh 17:19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.
Joh 17:20 "I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,
Joh 17:21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.
Joh 17:22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,
Joh 17:23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.
Joh 17:24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.
Joh 17:25 O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me.
Joh 17:26 I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them."
Post a Comment