Bible translation #5

On November 30th last year I promised to continue the work I began in November seeking to get to the bottom of the controversy concerning William Tyndale and John Wycliffe. To my shame, I have not done what I promised. And, honestly, I had forgotten about my promise.

Last night, "Anonymous" pricked my memory and my conscience by "Commenting" on my November 30th post via a further quote from the article I had referenced in my November 30th post.

By way of retrospect: On November 30th, I began to interact with Newsome's "Tyndale's Heresy," a brief Catholic perspective concerning Tyndale--why, the author believes, Tyndale's work should be abhorred and not prized.

[Note that I have just implicitly reduced what I am willing to grant without examination concerning the validity of the author's viewpoint. I have said the article conveys what the author believes. I have deliberately avoided suggesting that the article conveys, necessarily, either official Church dogma or "the Truth."

I do not claim to know official Church dogma or absolute historical Truth in the matter. Though I want to come as close to both as possible: I want to come as close as possible to understanding Catholic dogma and the Truth as well as to expressing Catholic dogma and the Truth.

(Please note, lest you mistake my meaning. I have spoken as I have of "Catholic dogma and the Truth" in an attempt to avoid presuming that Catholic dogma is the Truth. Yet I wish to avoid the opposite presumption: that Catholic dogma, as it were, "by definition," must not be the Truth. I spoke this way "merely" to note that, in my opinion, Catholic dogma and the Truth may or may not be one and the same. . . .

And while we're on that subject, maybe I should note that, if my understanding is correct, historically, back in the days of John Wycliffe (late 1300s) and William Tyndale (early 1500s), no one--certainly no public figure--in Western Europe could have spoken of "merely" noting such a thing as I just said: that "in my opinion, Catholic dogma and the Truth may or may not be one and the same." To even question such an identity would be to court capital punishment! . . .

But let us get on with our subject.)]

On November 30th, I quoted, and since then I have never moved beyond, the "first" of "several reasons" Newsome suggests for why "[t]he Church denied [Tyndale the right] . . . to make his own English translation of the Bible." (See my post from November 30th for my response to that first reason.)

Anonymous' Comment last night consisted of the following quote from Newsome:

[I]f the Church had decided to provide a new English translation of Scripture, Tyndale would not have been the man chosen to do it. He was known as only a mediocre scholar and had gained a reputation as a priest of unorthodox opinions and a violent temper. He was infamous for insulting the clergy, from the pope down to the friars and monks, and had a genuine contempt for Church authority. In fact, he was first tried for heresy in 1522, three years before his translation of the New Testament was printed. His own bishop in London would not support him in this cause.

Finding no support for his translation from his bishop, he left England and came to Worms, where he fell under the influence of Martin Luther. There in 1525 he produced a translation of the New Testament that was swarming with textual corruption. He willfully mistranslated entire passages of Sacred Scripture in order to condemn orthodox Catholic doctrine and support the new Lutheran ideas. The Bishop of London claimed that he could count over 2,000 errors in the volume (and this was just the New Testament). . . .

When discussing the history of Biblical translations, it is very common for people to toss around names like Tyndale and Wycliff. But the full story is seldom given. [The] case of a [modern,] gender-inclusive edition of the Bible is a wonderful opportunity for Fundamentalists to reflect and realize that the reason they don’t approve of this new translation is the same reason that the Catholic Church did not approve of Tyndale’s or Wycliff’s. These are corrupt translations, made with an agenda, and not accurate renderings of sacred Scripture.

I should note--what Anonymous did not--that this was the "last" (actually, third) reason Newsome listed for why the Church denied Tyndale the right to translate the Bible into English. And Newsome included one last sentence in his article following the section Anonymous quoted and that I have quoted from Anonymous, above:

And here at least Fundamentalists and Catholics are in ready agreement: Don’t mess with the Word of God.

I think this final sentence is important for at least two reasons:

1) Because Newsome shows good grace in recognizing and pointing out for all to see those places where faithful Protestants and Catholics should recognize agreement.

2) Because it is, at root, what I understand the Catholic objection is to what both Wycliffe and Tyndale were all about. At root, if I understand correctly, the Catholic Church objected to what it viewed as these men's "mess[ing] with the Word of God"--their attempts to make a mess of God's holy Word.

It disturbs me, as I know it disturbs Catholics who are in the know (for example, the woman who first brought this issue to my attention), that too many Protestants are unaware of these charges against Tyndale and Wycliffe.

So questions remain: Were Wycliffe and Tyndale messing with God's Word? If so, in what ways? Supposing they were messing, was their messing worthy of a death sentence?

Sadly, I am completely out of time this morning to answer these questions. So I will have to make a promise--and seek more diligently to fulfill it!--to return to these issues at a later date, but sometime much sooner than two months from now.

Bible translation #3: John Wycliffe

For some reason, I feel myself a bit "on a roll," here.

As I was working on my last post, I went to the Wycliffe Bible Translators' website, hoping to find out how many millions of people would, today, be living without a version of Scripture in their heart language--their "vernacular"--were it not for the work of that organization. I found only a reference to the number of translations they have completed so far (611), but no indication of the numbers of millions of human beings--the size of the potential "listening audience," as it were--who might be impacted by these translations.

While there, I noticed the statement that the Wycliffe Bible Translators organization got its name from "the pre-Reformation hero, John Wycliffe, who first translated the Bible into English" [emphasis added! --JAH].

And that, of course, is a direct statement in opposition to to what the correspondent who got me onto this subject wrote.

So what is the truth? Was John Wycliffe "first"? If so, in what sense was he first? First at what? And why is he remembered whereas others, apparently, are not?

I think, first, I want to note that there is no question concerning the existence of vernacular ("common language") versions of Scripture before John Wycliffe came along. There were English translations of the Scriptures before John Wycliffe came along. You can find plenty of evidence for that viewpoint on the Wikipedia (see "English translations of the Bible"and "Bible translations"), let alone the 1912 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia (online article on "Versions of the Bible" and, more particularly, the "English versions" subsection of that article).

But Henry Graham, once more, comes through with remarkable testimony:

Thomas More, Lord Chancellor of England under Henry VIII, . . . says: ‘The whole Bible long before Wycliff’s day was by virtuous and well-learned men translated into the English tongue, and by good and godly people with devotion and soberness well and reverently read’ (Dialogues III). Again, ‘The clergy keep no Bibles from the laity but such translations as be either not yet approved for good, or such as be already reproved for naught (i.e., bad, naughty) as Wycliff’s was. For, as for old ones that were before Wycliff’s days, they remain lawful and be in some folks’ hand. I myself have seen, and can show you, Bibles, fair and old which have been known and seen by the Bishop of the Diocese, and left in laymen’s hands and women’s too, such as he knew for good and Catholic folk, that used them with soberness and devotion.’

"But," Graham continues, "you will say, that is the witness of a Roman Catholic. Well, I shall advance Protestant testimony also.

The translators of the Authorized Version [i.e., "King James Version"--JAH], in their ‘Preface’, referring to previous translations of the Scriptures into the language of the people, make the following important statements. After speaking of the Greek and Latin Versions, they proceed: ‘The godly-learned were not content to have the Scriptures in the language which they themselves understood, Greek and Latin... but also for the behoof and edifying of the unlearned which hungered and thirsted after righteousness, and had souls to be saved as well as they, they provided translations into the Vulgar for their countrymen, insomuch that most nations under Heaven did shortly after their conversion hear Christ speaking unto them in their Mother tongue, not by the voice of their minister only but also by the written word translated.’

As all these nations were certainly converted by the Roman Catholic Church, for there was then no other to send missionaries to convert anybody, this is really a valuable admission. The Translators of 1611 [again, i.e., the translators of the "King James" Version--JAH], then, after enumerating many converted nations that had the Vernacular Scriptures, come to the case of England, and include it among the others. ‘Much about that time,’ they say (1360), ‘even in our King Richard the Second’s days, John Trevisa translated them into English, and many English Bibles in written hand are yet to be seen that divers translated, as it is very probable, in that age. ... So that, to have the Scriptures in the mother tongue is not a quaint conceit lately taken up, either by the Lord Cromwell in England [or others] ... but hath been thought upon, and put in practice of old, even from the first times of the conversion of any nation.’

This testimony, from the Preface, (too little known) of their own Authorized Bible, ought surely to carry some weight with well disposed Protestants.

Moreover, the ‘Reformed’ Archbishop of Canterbury, Cranmer, says, in his preface to the Bible of 1540: ‘The Holy Bible was translated and read in the Saxon tongue, which at that time was our mother tongue, whereof there remaineth yet divers copies found in old Abbeys, of such antique manner of writing and speaking that few men now being able to read and understand them. And when this language waxed old and out of common use, because folks should not lack the fruit of reading, it was again translated into the newer language, whereof yet also many copies remain and be daily found.’

Again, Foxe, a man that Protestants trust [Graham is referring to John Foxe who wrote the book now popularly known as Foxe's Book of Martyrs--a book, in its original, that highlighted, most especially, all the Protestant "worthies" of the Reformational era who died at the hands of Catholics--JAH], says: ‘If histories be well examined, we shall find, both before the Conquest and after, as well before John Wycliffe was born as since, the whole body of Scripture by sundry men translated into our country tongue.’

‘But as of the earlier period, so of this, there are none but fragmentary remains, the "many copies" which remained when Cranmer wrote in 1540 having doubtless disappeared in the vast and ruthless destruction of libraries which took place within a few years after that date.’ --These last words are from the pen of Rev. J. H. Blunt, a Protestant author, in his History of the English Bible; and another Anglican dignitary, Dean Hook, tells us that ‘long before Wycliff’s time there had been translator’s of the Holy Writ.’

One more authority on the Protestant side, and I have done: it is Mr. Karl Pearson (Academy, August, 1885), who says: ‘The Catholic Church has quite enough to answer for, but in the 15th century it certainly did not hold back the Bible from the folk: and it gave them in the vernacular (i.e. their own tongue) a long series of devotional works which for language and religious sentiment have never been surpassed.’

So why did anyone begin to suggest that John Wycliffe was "first"? Perhaps he was first in producing an unauthorized English translation?

A history of Bible translation

A few weeks ago, a woman wrote to complain about the content of one of the stories told in a book our company carries.

"Hero Tales in Core K starts our students out with a prejudice against the Catholic Church without all the facts needed to make a determination, in my opinion," she wrote.

That [our children] should be learning half the story in Sonlight is not expected, but that is precisely what Hero Tales divulges--half the story.

I recommend Tyndale's Heresy to you.

At a minimum, students should be told that Tyndale did not produce the first Bible in English. Exploring the heretical aspects of his version would also be prudent, I think.

It is a fact usually ignored by Protestant historians that many English versions of the Scriptures existed before Wycliff, and these were authorized and perfectly legal (see Where We Got the Bible by Henry Graham, chapter 11, "Vernacular Scriptures Before Wycliff"). Also legal would be any future authorized translations. And certainly reading these translations was not only legal but also encouraged. All this law did was to prevent any private individual from publishing his own translation of Scripture without the approval of the Church.

I have to confess, it is not always easy to maintain openness to "new information." How can I afford the time?

But, as I replied to my correspondent, "Really great article recommendations and points. (I found Graham's book on the web and, so far, have read both Chapter 11 and Chapter 1.) . . . I am going to have to think how to "talk" about these things. . . ."

Well, I think it is time for me to begin to "talk." And, I'm afraid, I probably need to modify my comment about the article recommendations being "really great."

In one sense I really do believe them to be great: they were greatly informative. But they may, actually, have been more informative than my correspondent intended. So they are "really great" in an alternative sense as well that she may not appreciate as much as my original communication with her may have implied.

But before I get into that level of detail, let me note that I think all of us--Protestant, Catholic, whoever--should be very careful to understand and teach history accurately. And as I have found, too often, a lot of "history" is non-historical: it isn't accurate; it isn't true . . . or, should I say, isn't accurate and true enough (for my tastes, anyway!).

So let me begin by offering the most positive aspects of my correspondents' critique.

Tyndale did not produce the first Bible in English.

The book she is criticizing, Hero Tales by Dave & Neta Jackson, is a collection of biographies for children. One chapter, titled "William Tyndale," is subtitled, "The Man Who Gave Us the English Bible."

I will admit the subtitle is at least potentially misleading . . . if you read nothing else in the story and you make certain assumptions about the broader meaning of the (sub)title. What I mean by that is this: It is about as wrong to say "Tyndale gave us the English Bible" as it would be to say "Columbus discovered America."

In one sense--or, depending on how far you want to nuance your words, in many senses--Columbus did not discover America. For example,

1) Columbus was by no means first to "discover" America. Clearly, the aboriginal peoples--the so-called "Indians"--had been in the land we now call America for well over a thousand years before Columbus arrived. Anthropologists would say they had been in "America" for thousands of years. Moreover, as research in the last century has made almost incontrovertibly clear:

2) Leif Ericson came to North America about AD1002; Chinese junks visited North America in 1421; and others, too, from distant lands, found their way to North America before Columbus did.

3) No place named "America" existed when Columbus "discovered" the land mass we now call America.

4) Columbus never used the word "America" to refer to the land mass now known by that name.

5) And so forth. . . .

But still, most people I know say Columbus discovered America. And that's certainly what they were taught.

Why?

Because it was his explorations and his reports that first truly opened the continents we now know as North and South America to exploration by Europeans and--as a result of the Europeans--the rest of the world. Prior to Columbus, the land masses we now know as North and South America remained largely, if not completely, unknown to those who lived outside. Their prior discoverers never reported their findings or reported them so poorly that "no one" followed up on their reports.

So is it fair to criticize those who say Columbus discovered America? Sure. Mildly. For the reasons stated and by way of proving one's superior grasp of historical realities.

But for all practical purposes, I have no serious difficulties with anyone saying Columbus discovered America.

Well, so it is, I'm afraid, with criticism of the Jacksons' article about Tyndale.

"At that time [i.e., when Tyndale was alive], it was illegal to translate the Scriptures into English without official approval," the Jacksons write. And that is correct. It had been illegal since 1408 when, as the Catholic Encyclopedia says (last sentence in section C.(2)), the Synod of Oxford "forbade the publication and reading of unauthorized vernacular versions of the Scriptures, restricting the permission to read the Bible in the vernacular to versions approved by the ordinary of the place, or . . . by the provincial council."

It was, as the Jacksons note, Tyndale's dream to make it possible for every man, woman and child in England, whether rich or poor, to read the Bible in English.

I need to stop here for the moment. But the story is . . . to be continued. . . .