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.
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.