Posted on 03/10/2006 6:19:21 PM PST by sionnsar
Please also note that the NAB that is used in the lectionary and missals is only available at the used book store. The NAB Bibles sold today contain text that has been substantially edited and revised from the ugly, awkward and mundane text of the lectionary.
Unfortunately, it is not much of an improvement.
Well, almost ANYthing would be an improvement . . . < sigh >
This will be a detailed post concerning the accurate history of the English Bible.
The "English Bible History" that you so kindly posted is rife with the legends of the Protestant Reformation.
Fortunately, the Dark Ages brought to Biblical literacy legends are being debunked by secular scholars.
Please note that the vast majority of European populace during this period was illiterate. Printed Bibles, whether in Latin, Greek or English would have been no use to illiterates.
With regard to the English versions of the Scriptures, please to note:
In the first period extending from the eighth to the tenth century we meet: (1) St. Bede's translation of John, i, 1-vi, 9; (2) interlinear glosses on the Psalms; (3) the Paris Psalter; (4) the so-called Lindisfarne Gospels; (5) the Rushworth version; (6) the West-Saxon Gospels; (7) Ælfric's version of a number of Old-Testament books.
From the 11th-14th centuries, French or the Anglo-Norman dialect reigned supreme among the upper classes, and in academic and official circles, while English was confined to the lower classes and the country-districts. The Bible renderings during the twelfth, thirteenth, and early fourteenth centuries were in French, whether they were made in England or brought over from France.
Before the middle of the fourteenth century the entire Old Testament and a great part of the New Testament had been translated into the Anglo-Norman dialect of the period. As to English work, we may note two transcripts of the West-Saxon Gospels during the course of the eleventh century and some copies of the same Gospels into the Kentish dialect made in the twelfth century.
Among the pre-Wyclifite translations we may note:
* The West Midland Psalter, probably written between 1340 and 1350; some attribute it to William of Shoreham. It contains the whole Psalter, eleven canticles, and the Athanasian Creed, and is preserved in three manuscripts.
* Richard Rolle's (d. 1349) English version of the "Commentary on the Psalms" by Peter Lombard spread in numerous copies throughout the country.
* Here belongs a version of the Apocalypse with a commentary; the latter was for some time attributed to Wyclif, but is really a version of a Norman commentary from the first half of the thirteenth century. Its later revisions agree so well with the Wyclif version that they must have been utilized in its preparation.
* The Pauline Epistles were rendered in the North Midlands or the North; they are still extant in a manuscript of the fifteenth century.
* Another version of the Pauline Epistles, and of the Epistles of St. James and St. Peter (only the first) originated in the south of England somewhere in the fourteenth century.
* A scholar of the north of England translated also commentaries on the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke.
* Several manuscripts preserve to us a version of the Books of Acts and the Catholic Epistles, either separately or in conjunction with a fragmentary Southern version of the Pauline Epistles and part of the Catholic Epistles, mentioned under.
Regarding the Lollard translations: They soon introduced interpolations of a virulent character into their sacred texts; violence and anarchy set in, and the party came to be regarded as enemies of order and disturbers of society.
The Synod of Oxford (1408) forbade the publication and reading of unauthorized vernacular versions of the Scriptures, restricting versions approved by the ordinary of the place, or, if the case so require, by the provincial council.
Printed Bible Period:
France, Spain, Italy, Bohemia, and Holland possessed the Bible in the vernacular before the accession of Henry VIII; in Germany the Scriptures were printed in 1466, and seventeen editions had left the press before Luther. No part of the English Bible was printed before 1525, no complete Bible before 1535, and none in England before 1538.
The Franciscan Tyndale limited his translation to the NT with a separate Pentateuch & Jonah and only to a few thousand copies.
Coverdale's work is a second-hand eclectic translation, based on the Latin and the German versions.
1537 the so-called Matthew's Bible was published. Thomas Matthew is an alias for John Rogers, a friend and fellow-worker of Tyndale. The Matthew's Bible is only a compilation of the renderings of Tyndale and Coverdale.
In 1539 the Matthew's Bible was followed by Taverner's edition of the Bible, a work which in our day would be considered a literary piracy, being nothing more than a revision of the Matthew text.
About 1536 Cromwell had placed Coverdale at the head of the enterprise for bringing out an approved version of the English Bible. The new version was based on the Matthew's Bible. Coverdale consulted in his revision of the Latin Version of the Old Testament with the Hebrew text by Sebastian Münster, the Vulgate, and Erasmus's edition of the Greek for the New Testament. The work was ready for the press in 1538, and the printing was begun at Paris, but had to be transferred to London on 17 December of the same year. In April of the following year the edition was finished, and owing to its size the version was called the Great Bible. Before 1541 six other editions issued from the press.
Geneva Bible, also known as the Breeches Bible from its rendering of Gen 3:7, "they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves breeches". The Old Testament represented the text of the Great Bible thoroughly revised with the help of the Hebrew original and other sources, while the New Testament consisted of Tyndale's latest text revised in accordance with Beza's translation and commentary. The handy form and other attractive features of the work rendered it so popular that between 1560 and 1644 at least 140 editions were published.
After the accession of Elizabeth an attempt was made to improve the authorized Great Bible and thus to counteract the growing popularity of the Calvinistic Geneva Bible. Bishop Parker divided the whole Bible into parcels, and distributed them among bishops and other learned men for revision. The resultant version was ready for publication on 5 October, 1568, and became generally known as the Bishops' Bible. Several editions were afterwards published, and the Great Bible ceased to be reprinted in 1569, excepting its Psalter which was introduced into the Bishops' Bible in 1572, and admitted exclusively in 1585. The Bishops' Bible is noted for its inequality in style and general merit; it could not replace the Geneva Bible in the English home.
In October, 1578, Gregory Martin, assisted chiefly by William (later Cardinal) Allen, Richard Bristow, Thomas Worthington, and William Reynolds began the work of preparing an English translation of the Bible for Catholic readers. The New Testament was published at Reims in 1582 with a preface and explanatory notes. The notes were written chiefly by Bristow, Allen, and Worthington. The Old Testament was published at Douai (1609-10) through the efforts of Dr. Worthington, then superior of the seminary.
I'll call. Vulgate is in Latin, not English. And if you're going to bother to learn languages, you might as well go with Greek and Hebrew.
Jerome's translation is much nearer in time to the original Greek (and for that matter to the Hebrew). When he translated, he had the advantage that we do not - of being almost a contemporary. C.S. Lewis wrote a whole book (The Discarded Image) on the problem of looking at ancient texts through modern eyes. It's not the mistakes you recognize that are the problem -- it's the changes that you are completely blind to. Jerome is one of our most valuable sources for what the original actually "meant".
And it's not difficult Latin. Besides, you have to read the Church Fathers, so you might as well learn it.
***You're mistaken.***
That I think the Vulgate is in Latin, rather than English?
Download E-sword here: http://www.e-sword.net/downloads.html
And then the Latin Vulgate (and what ever other version you want - they have several that would comport with your new faith) here: http://www.e-sword.net/bibles.html
***And it's not difficult Latin. Besides, you have to read the Church Fathers, so you might as well learn it.***
No, French is better for that. It is the language of John Calvin.
My Greek is actually better than my Latin (studied Latin in high school but Greek in college), but the Vulgate is still helpful. French I have never learned (I had a friend who was extremely fluent, and it was easier to rely on her.) But I was never anywhere near the Calvinist camp.
And as for your little dig about my "new faith" - it isn't all that new bec. I was a High Church Anglican (i.e. Catholic Lite or Catholic-In-Everything-But-Name.) It was the Episcopal Church USA that went nuts, not me.
I didn't say that. I said that if you were going to go to the trouble to learn a language to read the Bible, you might as well go with Greek & Hebrew. Here's my quote: "And if you're going to bother to learn languages, you might as well go with Greek and Hebrew."
Latin should be, at best, third on the list, perhaps fourth behind Aramaic.
It was the Episcopal Church USA that went nuts...
A point upon which we can agree, and the reason we both read and comment on these threads.
By the way - there was an article in the Dallas paper today about the FW Catholic bishop promoting a married ex-episcopal priest. If I dig it out online, I'll post it and ping you.
It was used for 1000 years, but a few things are hard, the apple translation for the pomegranate in Hebrew. Now tis true that Romans had a lot more experience with apples than with pomegranates.
It was used for 1000 years, but a few things are hard, the apple translation for the pomegranate in Hebrew. Now tis true that Romans had a lot more experience with apples than with pomegranates.
So, you assert that Jesus spoke Greek? Usually people assert that he read Hebrew, and spoke Aramaic.
Storge is admiration
Storge is admiration
Also Xenia, eros, storge, philia, agape
While Jews spoke Aramaic among themselves, the lingua franca of the Mediterranean region was koine Greek. So many people spoke it that the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek by the Jews of Alexandria, the text is usually called the Septuagint or LXX because traditionally the translation was done by seventy elders. The Septuagint is the version that Jesus probably used for teaching (just as in the Catholic Church the Bible was read in English while Latin was still used for the Mass itself.) When in the New Testament Jesus quotes the Old Testament, it's usually from the Septuagint -- I can't say 100 percent of the time, but several passages are word for word.
I'm sure that Jesus spoke Greek, on that account. Since he was a learned man and a rabbi, I'm sure he also knew Hebrew, but probably didn't use it in daily life.
There's a scene in The Passion where Pontius Pilate is questioning Jesus. He speaks to Jesus in Aramaic - but Jesus replies to him in the most elegant and polished Latin and Pilate does the mother of all double-takes. (Of course God would speak Latin, wouldn't He?)
Lewis obviously used the same lexicon I do (Liddell & Scott - really the classical man's lexicon) because the definition is word for word.
I don't know Xenia (other than the Warrior Princess < g > ). Where does it appear?
Here's the text:
The Greeks called this love storge (two syllables and the g is "hard"). I shall here call it simply Affection. My Greek Lexicon defines storge as "affection, especially of parents to offspring"; but also of offspring to parents. And that, I have no doubt, is the original form of the thing as well as the central meaning of the word. The image we must start with is that of a mother nursing a baby, a bitch or a cat with a basketful of puppies or kittens; all in a squeaking, nuzzling heap together; purrings, lickings, baby-talk, milk, warmth, the smell of young life.The importance of this image is that it presents us at the very outset with a certain paradox. The Need and Need-love of the young is obvious; so is the Gift-love of the mother. She gives birth, gives suck, gives protection. On the other hand, she must give birth or die. She must give suck or suffer. That way, her Affection too is a Need-love. There is the paradox. It is a Need-love but what it needs is to give. It is a Gift-love, but it needs to be needed.
[...]But the proper aim of giving is to put the recipient in a state where he no longer needs our gift. We feed children in order that they may soon be able to feed themselves. We teach them in order that they may soon not need our teaching. Thus a heavy task is laid upon this Gift-love. It must work towards its own abdication. We must aim at making ourselves superfluous.
~C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves , III: Affection (1960)
A remnant is in the work Xenophobe.
it is affection for people like yourself, just as Xenophobe is fear for people different.
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.