Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Mr Rogers
Firstly, Wycliffe's translation was condemned by the Catholic authorities mainly because it was issued with a prologue containing the heretical views of the Lollards, Wycliffe's disciples. Later editions of it, without the prologue, had a general use even among Catholics -as far, of course, as the laborious transcription by hand in the pre- printing press days would permit the multiplication of copies.

I would dispute your statement about "great risk" for the Wycliffe translation -- especially as I point out it was in usage among orthodoxy as well, once the prologue was removed.

With regard to Tyndale's translation, Thomas More commented that searching for errors in the Tyndale Bible was similar to searching for water in the sea and Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall of London declared that there were upwards of 2,000 errors in Tyndale's Bible.

Also, just as with the Wycliffe edition, this included a prologue and notes

King Henry VIII in 1531 declared that "the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people." So troublesome did Tyndale’s Bible prove to be that in 1543—after his break with Rome—Henry again decreed that "all manner of books of the Old and New Testament in English, being of the crafty, false, and untrue translation of Tyndale . . . shall be clearly and utterly abolished, extinguished, and forbidden to be kept or used in this realm.
395 posted on 01/24/2011 6:35:32 AM PST by Cronos (Bobby Jindal 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies ]


To: Cronos

“With regard to Tyndale’s translation, Thomas More commented that searching for errors in the Tyndale Bible was similar to searching for water in the sea and Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall of London declared that there were upwards of 2,000 errors in Tyndale’s Bible.”

That was wickedness on the part of Thomas More, who knew better. There was nothing wrong with Tyndale’s translation, apart from the mortal errors that come with any man attempting anything. They were lying, and doing so to protect their hierarchy. Thomas More’s hatred for non-Catholics is a huge blot on his legacy.

For example, More protested that Tyndale used elder instead of bishop. Tyndale’s reply was that Erasmus did the same thing, and for the same reason: that is what the word means. More’s reply was that it was OK for Erasmus, because Erasmus wasn’t a heretic.

Henry VIII wasn’t known for his rational arguments, either! The ‘Great Bible’ he authorized had Tyndale’s NT, other than changes of the words for church & bishop to satisfy the church hierarchy. The KJV followed it, for the same reason. It was King James who said, “No Bishop, No King!”

The pictures I posted were from the original 1526 edition. Notice the notes? No? There weren’t any. Notes would have required extra printing cost. A previous attempted printing had included notes, but it didn’t make the market.

The preface to Tyndale’s NT read, in total:

“The New Testament as it was written, and caused to be written, by them which heard it. To whom also our saviour Christ Jesus commanded that they should preach it unto all creatures.”

If that is heresy, then I’m a heretic and proud to be one!

Regarding cost, in 1274 a Latin Bible cost 30 pounds. By the 1420s, a hand written Wycliffe New Testament was less than 3 pounds. A complete one ran 7-10 pounds. And the difference is even greater, because the inflation that caused the Peasant’s Revolt in the 1300s would have raised the price I’m comparing much higher than 30 pounds.

But in the 1520s, Tyndale’s New Testament ran under 0.15 pounds (7 groats). With distribution and shipping costs to towns around England, the price rose to about 1/3 of a pound - just 1% of the cost of a Latin Bible from 1274, and that doesn’t allow for the 150 years of inflation. And there are records of Tyndale’s complete NT selling for under two shillings.

“Later editions of it, without the prologue, had a general use even among Catholics -as far, of course, as the laborious transcription by hand in the pre- printing press days would permit the multiplication of copies.”

More precisely, copies without notes were impossible to discern as Wycliffe’s, since it was a perfectly good translation of the Latin.


406 posted on 01/24/2011 8:31:19 AM PST by Mr Rogers (Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson