The Lollards, for instance, did not hesitate to introduce into certain copies of the pious and orthodox Commentary on the Psalms by the hermit of Hampole interpolations of their own of the most virulently controversial kind (MSS. Trin. Coll. Camb. B.V. 25, Brit. Mus. Reg. 18. C. 26, &c.), and although the text of their Biblical versions was faithful and true, the General Prologue of the Later Version was interlarded with controversial matter.The English ‘Bibles fair and old’ referred to by Thomas More were copies of the later Wycliffite version. There was nothing in the translation itself that smacked of Lollardy or any other form of ‘heresy’, and the copies bore no indication of the translators’ identity. Many bishops would feel quite happy to grant permission for the possession and use of such copies.
“About Tyndale’s bible — you are correct that there is no heresy, though the excerpt you gave is not the extent of his prologue which include notes of contempt towards authority, which is why Henry 8 condemned him.”
Maybe another edition had a longer prologue. The “Original Spelling Edition” of the 1526 printing claims to have everything included, with the title page taken from the Stuttgart copy - the only surviving copy with the title page intact. The facsimile copy sold with the British Museum doesn’t have a title page, IIRC - my copy is somewhere, but my wife decided to rearrange our bedroom and it is somewhere in the boxes of books in the hall. ;>(
However, the Lollards were persecuted, and I don’t think their enemies cared if the scripture they were found with had notes or not. The De heretico comburendo, passed in 1401, merely said “...that this wicked sect, preachings, doctrines, and opinions, should from henceforth cease and he utterly destroyed; by the assent of the great lords and other noble persons of the said realm, being in the said Pariament, hatth granted, established, and ordained, from henceforth firmly to be observed, that none within the said realm or any other dominions subject to his Roval Majesty, presume to preach openly or privily, without the license of the diocesan of the same place first required and obtained, curates in their own churches and persons hitherto privileged, and other of the Canon Law granted, only except; nor that none from henceforth anything preach, hold, teach, or instruct openly or privily, or make or write any book contrary to the catholic faith or determination of the Holy Church, nor of such sect and wicked doctrines and opinions shall make any conventicles, or in any wise hold or exercise schools; and also that none from henceforth in any wise favor such preacher or maker of any such and like conventicles, or persons holding or exercising schools, or making or writing such books, or so teaching, informing, or exciting the people, nor any of them maintain or in any wise sustain, and that all and singular having such books or any writings of such wicked doctrine and opinions, shall really with effect deliver or cause to be delivered all such books and writings to the diocesan of the same place within forty days from the time of the proclamation of this ordinance and statute.”
http://www.ric.edu/faculty/rpotter/heretico.html
The penalty? “...then the sheriff of the county of the same place, and mayor and sheriffs, or sheriff, or mayor and bailiffs of the city, town, and borough of the same county next to the same diocesan or the said commissaries, shal1 be personally present in preferring of such sentences, when they by the same diocesan or his comissaries shall be required; and they the same persons and every of them, after such sentence promulgate shall receive, and them before the people in an high place cause to be burnt, that such punishment may strike fear into the minds of others, whereby,nosuch wicked doctrine and heretical and erroneous opinions, nor their authors and fautors, in the said realm and dominions, against the Catholic faith, Christian law, and determination of the holy church, which God prohibit, be sustained or in any way suffered...”
As a Baptist, I find the mixing of church and state appalling. Of course, anyone holding Baptist-like beliefs (true Baptists didn’t appear in England until the 1600s) could be burned for believing what I believe.
In 1408, it became illegal to make a Bible without the approval of the church, and the copies of the Wycliffe Bible made after that date (probably) claim to have been made prior to it.
Frankly, the Lollards largely believed that the scripture itself suffice to condemn the Catholic Church. I would be curious if they actually included many notes, since notes would slow them down and their belief was that scripture was plain enough to condemn various Catholic doctrine by itself.
I’d like to read more about them, but my Amazon.com budget is maxed out for January...this looks interesting:
Unhappily, many of the books run over $100, which is more than I can justify for arguing about English history in the 1300s!
If any are interested, the Twelve Conclusions of the Lollards can be found here:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Twelve_Conclusions_of_the_Lollards