English (and common language) Versions of the Bible

[dadof10]

You brought it up!

Huh? You asked this, which was answered by CC:

Should it not have been the Church's mission to teach them to be literate?

And I asked this:

So, what's your point?

Still waiting for the answer and how it relates to the OP...

 

[Guest]

Because in the OP it stated:

There is one other thing to consider: Village peasants, which made up the bulk of the populations of Medeival Europe, were illiterate and died at relatively young ages. Even if there were a printing press before the 1500's - which there was not - it would have done the common man little good, as he could not read.

The PRINTING PRESS helped to spur on literacy!

One of the goals of the Hus, and Wycliffe was to help spur on literacy so that the common man could read the Word of God in his own native tongue.

 

[Vic C.]

This thread is supposed to be about early Common language Bibles and the literacy of the common folks of that time. It IS NOT a RC/nonRC debate nor is there to be any trolling and/or stalking of members just to stir a confrontation. If the thread continues in that line, it will be locked. Please refrain from posting or responding to posts of that nature.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

This thread is supposed to be about early Common language Bibles and the literacy of the common folks of that time. It IS NOT a RC/nonRC debate nor is there to be any trolling and/or stalking of members just to stir a confrontation. If the thread continues in that line, it will be locked. Please refrain from posting or responding to posts of that nature.

Thank you. Now, I invite people to read this link:

Anglo-Saxon Versions of Scripture (A.D. 600 - 1150)
LINK: http://www.bible-researcher.com/anglosaxon.html

 

[mondar]

I think the history of the english bible is interesting. I actually dont know where to begin. The subject raises the question of what is "English." In the previous post CC posted a pic of something Anglo-Saxon. It reminds me that I think the first translator was Bede in the 7th century. Although that hardly was the English Language. Possibly that is calle Old English or something like that.

Of course English translations appeared rather late in the history of Christianity. Long before Bede, there was the Syriac Peshetta, and several Latin translations. I mention several Latin translations because Jerome's Vulgate was not the only Latin translation. It was probably the highest quality complete latin translation made, but it is not the only Latin translation.

Of course so far I am speaking of the New Testament. When considering the Old Testament we have a completely different ball game.
1----The septuigent (LXX) was a early translation of the OT into koine greek. This was most likely the first common language translation, but is not the first translation.
2---- The OT was not originally written paleo-Hebrew. The Jewish script used by the masorites was not the original script. The language and alphabet of Moses and the prophets was most likely paleo-Hebrew. We have very few paleo-Hebrew manuscripts left today. I think the greatest amount of Paleo-Hebrew MSS are in the dead sea scrolls. The essenes refused to copy the book of Leviticus into the modern Jewish scripts used by the masorites, and so copied it in paleo-hebrew. Can we consider the movement from paleo-hebrew to the modern jewish script a translation? Well, not really. I think the idea was to make the bible readable to as many as possible.

I dont think that there is any doubt that many efforts have gone into making the bible readable to both ancient and modern readers in the common language of each day. I think today's openness of Christian scholars concerning manuscripts and translations is commendable.

One example of our openness today is when Biblical Archeological Review put pressure on the Dead Sea Scrolls committee to open the scrolls to publication by people outside the team. It was not that long ago that study of the DSS was a private matter. While I dont think it was a conspiracy, private investigation was not the way things should be done. The DSS were monopolized by a small group and their findings were not open to question, but all that changed. I am glad that BAR put pressure on the DSS team to be more open in publishing the DSS. I compare this to the Koran and the revision under Uthman. We need no such control in Biblical scholarship.
My opinion is to let the bible be in the hands of the people, and let investigation be open.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

I think the history of the english bible is interesting. I actually dont know where to begin. The subject raises the question of what is "English.".....

...and that is a point many people forget. When people say there were no "English" Bibles before Tydale, they forget that there really wasn't any English language much before Tyndale.

Now, trade the word "English" for "Vernacular" (i.e. common language). I have always tried to make the point the the Vulgate WAS in the vernacular, because when it was written, Latin WAS the language.

I don't think people appreciate the atmosphere of Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire. No central governamt, no schools, no infrastructure to speak of. Just little fiefdoms every few miles, with a Castle and some sort of King or Lord lording it over some poor slobs in villages. Bibles were EXPENSIVE, because they were made of sheepskin - with all the sheep a Bible required, a Bible could const the equivalent of $20,000. There may have been one in every church, chained up because they were so priceless. That sort of overall picture does not lend itslef to literacy of peasants.

But the Church always PREACHED the Gospel in Her Liturgies, and thats how the Word was received, orally: "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ" (Romans 10:17).

Yet, even then, there were still common language Scriptures here and there, but a person had to come up with one for themselves, which means a person had to have a bit of wealth.

 

[dadof10]

Now, trade the word "English" for "Vernacular" (i.e. common language). I have always tried to make the point the the Vulgate WAS in the vernacular, because when it was written, Latin WAS the language.

Great point. I read an apologetic work a long time ago when I was arguing this topic on another forum. It stated, with historical references, that the Church taught Latin as a "universal" language to help everyone communicate no matter where they lived or what language they spoke or read, not (as my opponent claimed) to keep Scripture hidden from the "people". She was pretty successful, too, so you could make a good case that Latin WAS the vernacular in certain times and places.