Historian: First English Bible Fueled First Fundamentalists

Live Science via Yahoo ^ | 12-11-07 | Heather Whipps

[DManA]

Nostalgic for the good old days of kings and dukes?

Fully certain that his interpretation of Scripture was the only way, even to the extent to questioning not only the validity of popes, but kings

You stumbled on the real reason the elite were desperate to keep the bible out of peons' hands.

[mamelukesabre]

Interesting. All this time I thought the wycliff bible was the first english bible.

Wait a sec! I’m right. This article is full of BS! The tyndale bible was 1534, and the wycliff bible was 1385! I just looked it up in my old book of english literature printed in 1924.

These idiots don’t know a dam thing.

[TASMANIANRED]

Prior to the printing press they had to be copied by hand...

[DoughtyOne]

That is true. The printing press goes back to the early 1500s, I believe, but I doubt that print became widespread until a long time later. I don’t really know for sure.

I’d guess a hundred years or more.

During that period all scripture remained a time consuming labor intensive endeavor.

[wideawake]

The Wycliffe Bible was not a translation from the original tongues, but a variegated translation from one of the less dependable editions of the Latin Vulgate.

The Tyndale Bible was the first translation of the Bible into English using the Hebrew and Greek texts of Scripture.

Moreover, the Wycliffe Bible circulated in a handful of partial manuscripts, while the Tyndale Bible in its Coverdale version was the first printed edition of the complete protocanonical Bible in English and was therefore the first English Bible commonly available.

These idiots don’t know a dam thing.

Or they may be using stricter, less casual definitions than yours.

[wideawake]

Oh, and to correct your inaccuracies (apparently derived from your use of a badly outdated historical text), the most common full recension of the Wycliffe Bible dates from 1388, the Tyndale Bible was completed in 1525 and first published in 1526 as a New Testament edition, the Tyndale/Coverdale edition of both Testaments dates to 1535.

And of course, there are English translations of individual books of the Bible dating back to the 800s.

[mamelukesabre]

Oh you are rich. Ok first of all, since when does HISTORY become outdated? YOu must be one of those revisionist clowns. A history scholar alive today is more credible than a history scholar born in the 1800s, right? WHatever.

Second, anything before about AD1100 or so is not english. It’s old saxon, or anglo-saxon, or whatever you choose to call it.

And finally, I find it interesting that the dates you choose to quote are “the most common recension” for the wyclif, and “the first published(new testament only)” for the tyndale.

Now, I ask you and everyone else on this thread, who’s the half-truth-telling sneaky one? Me or you?

I know who I think it is.

[mamelukesabre]

THat makes me want to throw up.

[mamelukesabre]

It was frowned upon to translate it out of latin simply because they knew that if the bible were to be translated into a new language, then a translation from that into another language, then from that language into a third language...pretty soon you’d have a bible that bears no resemblance to the original greek and hebrew versions. Latin was the universal language and it was decided that the translations should be halted there.

It was not a conspiracy. It had a very simple and honest intent. And frankly, I agree with it. Since latin is no longer the universal language and english is, I would argue that all translations after the king james version should be destroyed...or at least denounced as inferior.

[wideawake]

Oh you are rich. Ok first of all, since when does HISTORY become outdated?

Every time that historians uncover new evidence that contradicts their earlier assumptions. That should be obvious.

A history scholar alive today is more credible than a history scholar born in the 1800s, right? WHatever.

If he has access to information that had not yet been uncovered in the prior historian's day, he absolutely may be more credible.

That also should be obvious.

Second, anything before about AD1100 or so is not english. It’s old saxon, or anglo-saxon, or whatever you choose to call it.

I choose to call it English, since it was the language of the inhabitants of England in 1100 just as contemporary English is the language of the inhabitants of England in 2007. Or did you expect that the people of England should have been translating documents into 1500 vernacular in 1100?

If you want to try and argue that the texts were written in different dialects or diachronics of English, then the same distinction holds true of Wycliffe vs. Tyndale: the Middle English of 1375-1395 was not the Early Modern English of 1535, nor was the Wycliffe Bible's mixture of Yorkshire and Midlands dialect the same as Tyndale's consistent London dialect.

And finally, I find it interesting that the dates you choose to quote are “the most common recension” for the wyclif, and “the first published(new testament only)” for the tyndale.

Unlike you, I think accuracy is important. The least common recension of Wycliffe dates to the 1370s, well before your claimed date - but that recension is not close to a complete Bible. The earliest definite date for a complete Wycliffe Bible is 1395.

Wycliffe, of course, was only one of the authors of the Wycliffe Bible - maybe of only part of the New Testament. He died of a stroke long before the complete text was finished.

There never was a Tyndale Bible containing both testaments ever published, because Tyndale was murdered before he ever completed the proofs of an entire Bible. What exists is the Coverdale Bible which incorporates large chunks of Tyndale's text. So, no matter which way you slice it, your facts were wrong.

Now, I ask you and everyone else on this thread, who’s the half-truth-telling sneaky one? Me or you?

Everything I have stated is the unvarnished truth. I don't believe your inaccurate comments were intentionally deceptive, but were the result of your lack of historical knowledge and your reliance on simplified and outdated sources.

Before you call other people idiots, you should get your own dates and data straight.