“First of all, as shown by Gasquet, there is reason to believe Wycliffe’s Bible was actually an adaptation of a commonly copied Catholic vernacular Bible. If More didn’t realize that the translation he had was from Wycliffe, that would merely prove how common Catholic made and approved translations were in his day. I love it when anti-Catholics undermine their pet claims!”
You’ve claimed this silliness before. Gasquet was an idiot, and no reputable historian would repeat his stupid accusation that the people who loved AND hated Wycliffe didn’t know that the Wycliffe Bible was actually a catholic translation made by someone unknown. The folks who accused Wycliffe knew full well his role, as did Wycliffe’s supporters.
“His historical work has been attacked by later writers. Geoffrey Elton wrote of “the falsehoods purveyed by Cardinal Gasquet and Hilaire Belloc.”[1] His collaboration with Edmund Bishop has been described as “an alliance between scholarship exquisite and deplorable.”[2] A polemical campaign by G. G. Coulton against Gasquet was largely successful in discrediting his works in academic eyes.[3] One of his books contained an appendix “A Rough List of Misstatements and Blunders in Cardinal Gasquet’s Writings.”[4]
David Knowles wrote a reasoned piece of apologetics on Gasquet’s history in 1956, Cardinal Gasquet as an Historian.[5] In it he speaks of Gasquet’s “many errors and failings”, and notes that he “was not an intellectually humble man and he showed little insight into his own limitations of knowledge and training.” Coulton, though, he felt was in error, through over-simplifying the case.[6]
Eamon Duffy said in an interview:
“ ...Cardinal Francis Aidan Gasquet, a great Benedictine historian, was both a bad workman and not entirely scrupulous about what he said. So you can be a churchman and a lousy historian.[7]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Aidan_Gasquet
“that would merely prove how common Catholic made and approved translations were in his day”
There are no known Catholic translations into the vernacular during the 1300s. Wycliffe and later Tyndale provided them, at a terrible cost to themselves. No vernacular translation has ever been found that wasn’t done by either Wycliffe (and his supporters) or Tyndale during that time.
The idea that an unknown Catholic made a vernacular translation is a fantasy, and it isn’t one shared by any historian.
More didn’t hide his opposition to commoners having a vernacular translation. It is a shame that some choose to lie about what More proclaimed with pride.
You wrote:
“You’ve claimed this silliness before.”
I guess you call things you utterly fail to refute silliness.
“Gasquet was an idiot, and no reputable historian would repeat his stupid accusation that the people who loved AND hated Wycliffe didn’t know that the Wycliffe Bible was actually a catholic translation made by someone unknown.”
They just repeat your accusation that even brilliant scholars of the day were unable to recognize Wycliffe’s translation? Isn’t that exactlywhat you said about More? I have much more logical reason to believe Gasquet and More, than you. What Gasquet says makes much more sense than what you say.
“The folks who accused Wycliffe knew full well his role, as did Wycliffe’s supporters.”
But More wouldn’t know?
“A polemical campaign by G. G. Coulton against Gasquet was largely successful in discrediting his works in academic eyes.[3] One of his books contained an appendix “A Rough List of Misstatements and Blunders in Cardinal Gasquet’s Writings.”[4]”
Coulton is discredited.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9605clas.asp
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9606clas.asp
I distinctly remember my secular minded historians speaking of Coulton with distain because of his polemical nature. No one takes him too seriously today.
Also, none of the historians you cite actually refutes anything Gasquet says.
“There are no known Catholic translations into the vernacular during the 1300s.”
False. Richard Rolle’s Psalter, Yorkshire, c. 1340. West Midlands Psalter, c. 1350. Translations were being made.
“Wycliffe and later Tyndale provided them, at a terrible cost to themselves.”
Nope. Wycliffe died in his bed after a stroke. Tyndale was never in trouble over his translation itself.
“No vernacular translation has ever been found that wasn’t done by either Wycliffe (and his supporters) or Tyndale during that time.”
Again, false: Richard Rolle’s Psalter, Yorkshire, c. 1340. West Midlands Psalter, c. 1350. Surtees Psalter, Midlands or Northern (Yorkshire), c. 1250-1300.
“The idea that an unknown Catholic made a vernacular translation is a fantasy, and it isn’t one shared by any historian.”
Actually the idea that parts of scripture were translated by unknown Catholics is shared by every reputable historian who has ever lived. Again, Richard Rolle’s Psalter, Yorkshire, c. 1340. West Midlands Psalter, c. 1350. Surtees Psalter, Midlands or Northern (Yorkshire), c. 1250-1300, Bible Historiale, etc.
Why don’t you actually learn some history - since all you see,m to do is rely on wikipedia - and read this: Kees Dekker “Reading the Anglo-Saxon Gospels in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries”, in: Anglo-Saxon Books and Their Readers, ed. Thoman N. Hall and Donald Scragg. Kalamazoo, MI, 2008), pp. 68–93.
or
and just for fun:
“More didn’t hide his opposition to commoners having a vernacular translation. It is a shame that some choose to lie about what More proclaimed with pride.”
Are you accusing me of lying?