Abundance of Vernacular Scriptures before Wycliff

CatholicCrusader · #1 05-20-2009, 11:13 AM

I have a little book at home called "Where We Got the Bible" by Father Henry G. Graham.

I found the entire text online.

Chapter 11 is called "Abundance of Vernacular Scriptures before Wycliff"

I'd like to talk about that. Many people say that, prior to protestantism, English speaking peoples had no scriptures in their own tounge. Father Graham lays out in Chapter 11 that this is not so, and gives examples going all the way back to 1066. At one point he states:

"....After the Norman conquest in 1066, Anglo-Norman or Middle-English became the language of England, and consequently the next translations of the Bible we meet with are in that tongue. There are several specimens still known, such as the paraphrase of Orm (about 1150) and the Salus Animae (1050), the translations of William Shoreham and Richard Rolle, hermit of Hampole (died 1349). I say advisedly 'specimens' for those that have come down to us are merely indications of a much greater number that once existed, but afterwards perished....."

Here is a link: Where we got the bible

If you want to read chapter 11 and comment, I'd like to hear.
But here is a warning: This is an old book, and the style of writing is a bit combative and polemic. Please try to look past that and take no offense. Try to just look at the dates and information. A lot of it is very very interesting.

CatholicCrusader · #2 05-22-2009, 08:29 AM

I am suprised no one has commented on this.

Rose · #3 05-22-2009, 11:21 AM

I went and read most of chapter X and some of chapter XI and found it interesting but nothing that I hadn't heard bits of pieces of before---especially the part about the Bible only being written in Latin so the "common masses" had to depend on the Church for scripture. Of course, most of the common people couldn't read at all so what was the point..

Saying that there were Bibles out there existing that we know nothing or very little about and disputing the fact that the first non-latin Bible was by Wycliff doesn't really amaze me. I think most people that do any studying have to realize that could be so. Wycliff is just the one always mentioned, that is all. I do think it is an interesting topic and I think I will take the time to read this pamphlet. Thanks.

christkid777 · #4 05-22-2009, 03:25 PM

You have probably noticed that many good topics get less than the anticipated reception. That is just the way things are. I am glad for the information you shared, and Rose, but like yourself I am consumed by thing that I find of interest at the moment. Don't quit though! Though I am not a Catholic and you seem to concentrate on the Catholic perspective, I like your knowledge oriented threads.

CatholicCrusader · #5 07-03-2009, 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rose

I went and read most of chapter X and some of chapter XI and found it interesting but nothing that I hadn't heard bits of pieces of before---especially the part about the Bible only being written in Latin so the "common masses" had to depend on the Church for scripture. Of course, most of the common people couldn't read at all so what was the point.......

Thats true.
And also, for centuries after Christ died, Latin WAS the common language of the empire, so at first, the Church DID have the scriptures in the language of the people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by christkid777

You have probably noticed that many good topics get less than the anticipated reception. That is just the way things are. I am glad for the information you shared, and Rose, but like yourself I am consumed by thing that I find of interest at the moment. Don't quit though! Though I am not a Catholic and you seem to concentrate on the Catholic perspective, I like your knowledge oriented threads.

Thank you

Amadeus · #6 07-03-2009, 07:01 PM

I think you would find more opposition among the leadership of more traditional or mainstream protestant groups that here. I try to read my Bible every day and study it as often as is feasible with my other responsibilities and my time. I did look at your link, but I'm expecting a brother for Bible study soon so the time is not available now.

When I was young and energetic I read the Book of Mormon and parts of the Book of Doctrines and Covenants of the Mormons. If I had the time, ability and energy I would also read the Kuran.

So am I saying the Truth is where you find it? No, Jesus is the Truth. The only portion of His Truth that I have is what the Holy Ghost has written in my heart. I try to live for God as best I can, but I know that that alone will not do it. Jesus paid the price and God will do all of the work that is necessary in us and will direct our steps for us, if we will allow it. I try also to pray as much as I can, but that too I must lay on Him for I will always fall short by my own efforts.

I have not read all of the other books of the Bible not contained in the KJV or the Valera or the Luther, but they it is in on my mind to do just that when God lays it on my heart. Are they the Word of God? I cannot say and neither do I need to. The Word of God is what God spoke and Jesus is what that Word has become. Does that include anything in those other seven books, or the Book of Mormon or the Kuran?

I am not a scholar as most people view scholars. I read and write German and Spanish, and read the Bible regularly in both languages, but I know nothing of Hebrew or Greek. My Latin exists, but it is insufficient to read scripture.

Who am I to say where the Word of God is written other than that which is already written by the Holy Ghost in my heart? The Word of God is contained in written books, but without the Spirit, who can find the Truth in it?

Like Christskid I only focus on a certain few things, usually one at the time, but my desire is always to focus where God wants me to focus. This, I guess is why I have not read those 7 books yet. But... in God's time.

John,

winsome · #7 07-04-2009, 10:50 AM

Just for interest for the KJV enthusiasts, the Catholic translation from the Latin Vulgate into English (the Douay-Rheims), which is still in use today by some Catholics, was completed in 1609, two years before the first edition of the KJV.

winsome · #8 07-04-2009, 10:52 AM

Just before his death in 735, that great scholar, the Venerable Bede, completed a translation of St. John's gospel into Anglo-Saxon.

Amadeus · #9 07-04-2009, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winsome

Just for interest for the KJV enthusiasts, the Catholic translation from the Latin Vulgate into English (the Douay-Rheims), which is still in use today by some Catholics, was completed in 1609, two years before the first edition of the KJV.

The original Spanish Bible, Casiodoro de Reina was dated in 1569 and the revised in 1602 by Cipriano de valera. I have the 1602 edition and a 1960 revision of the same.

My Luther translation dates from 1545.

CatholicCrusader · #10 07-04-2009, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winsome

Just before his death in 735, that great scholar, the Venerable Bede, completed a translation of St. John's gospel into Anglo-Saxon.

Yep. Right in the second paragraph of Ch. 11 it says:

".......To begin far back, we have a copy of the work of Caedmon, a monk of Whitby, in the end of the seventh century, consisting of great portions of the Bible in the common tongue. In the next century we have the well-known translations of Venerable Bede, a monk of Jarrow, who died whilst busy with the Gospel of St. John. In the same (eighth) century we have the copies of Eadhelm, Bishop of Sherborne; of Guthlac, a hermit near Peterborough; and of Egbert, Bishop of Holy Island; these were all in Saxon, the language understood and spoken by the Christians of that time........".