Do you know the translation history of the Bible?

Question

It was only by the authority of the Catholic Church, which collected the various books of Scripture in the fourth century, that we have a Christian Bible at all. And it is only because of the Church that the Bible survived and was taught for the many centuries before the printing press made it widely available.


John Wycliff had produced a translation of the Bible, that was corrupt and full of heresy. It was not an accurate rendering of sacred Scripture.

Both the Church and the secular authorities condemned it and did their best to prevent it from being used to teach false doctrine and morals. Because of the scandal it caused, the Synod of Oxford passed a law in 1408 that prevented any unauthorized translation of the Bible into English and also forbade the reading of such unauthorized translations.

Tyndale was an English priest of no great fame who desperately desired to make his own English translation of the Bible. The Church denied him for several reasons.

First, it saw no real need for a new English translation of the Scriptures at this time. In fact, booksellers were having a hard time selling the print editions of the Bible that they already had. Sumptuary laws had to be enacted to force people into buying them.

Second, we must remember that this was a time of great strife and confusion for the Church in Europe. The Reformation had turned the continent into a very volatile place. So far, England had managed to remain relatively unscathed, and the Church wanted to keep it that way. It was thought that adding a new English translation at this time would only add confusion and distraction where focus was needed.

Lastly, if 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).

And we must remember that this was not merely a translation of Scripture. His text included a prologue and notes that were so full of contempt for the Catholic Church and the clergy that no one could mistake his obvious agenda and prejudice. Did the Catholic Church condemn this version of the Bible? Of course it did.

The secular authorities condemned it as well. Anglicans are among the many today who laud Tyndale as the "father of the English Bible." But it was their own founder, King Henry VIII, who in 1531 declared that "the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people."

So troublesome did Tyndale’s Bible prove to be that in 1543—after his break with Rome—Henry again decreed that "all manner of books of the Old and New Testament in English, being of the crafty, false, and untrue translation of Tyndale . . . shall be clearly and utterly abolished, extinguished, and forbidden to be kept or used in this realm."

Ultimately, it was the secular authorities that proved to be the end for Tyndale. He was arrested and tried (and sentenced to die) in the court of the Holy Roman Emperor in 1536. His translation of the Bible was heretical because it contained heretical ideas—not because the act of translation was heretical in and of itself. In fact, the Catholic Church would produce a translation of the Bible into English a few years later (The Douay-Reims version, whose New Testament was released in 1582 and whose Old Testament was released in 1609).

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. This present case of a 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.

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

Answer 1

You are correct, as usual.

Answer 2

My preference is the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures but I always carry a King James Bible and when it comes to defending God's word any translation will do. Translators have changed some areas but aren't intelligent enough to change it everywhere it is in the scriptures, this is because the word of God is like a double edge sword if one area is compromised there are many other places the truth can be found. Take God's name [יהוה], it's called the Tretragrammaton, the New World Translation has it over 7000 times from cover and in truth [ALL] Bible translations have the Tretragrammaton [יהוה] over 7000 times they just have translated it GOD/LORD. This is really evident in all early translation but now the newer translations are changing GOD to God and LORD to Lord, Psalms 110:1 will render it this way, the Lord said on to my Lord where the way it's rendered now is the LORD said unto my Lord. This is happening right under the nose of so called Christians because the don't read the Bible yet they call themselves Christians. Soon there will be 7000 Lord/God instead of LORD/GOD, this is one of the main reasons we have false teachings like the Trinity, when you make the true God and his only begotten Son names the same then there is confusion and false teacher(Satan's agents) can easily pull the wool over the none believers eyes(2 Corinthians 4:4) among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through.

Answer 3

As a Cathoic and a grad student in theology first I am appalled that you would use the phrase "Word of God" in the same context as the non-Catholics. The Word capital W is the Logos (Word), Jesus Christ the Word made flesh.

Secondly, having taken several Christian History courses you interspersed alot of conjecture in with little fact.


Tyndale spoke 7 language, was a students of Eramus, and was a highly "learned man". The article you COPIED uses ad persona arguments which is a sure sign it is to be suspect. Did Tyndale assert an agenda?Possibly, it could be argued either way. Was he a dualist, which was a heresy? Borderline. Why did Henry condemn Tyndale's translation? Because Tyndale sided with the Roman Church on Henry's divorce and wrote the book "Practice of the Prelates" supporting Rome over King Henry in 1530. It was this that would produce his executable charge of Treason.

What everyone fails to mention was it was Henry post the Schism of the Church of England that actually ordered the kidnapping, arrest, imprisionment and eventually the execution of Tyndale. Not the Catholic Church. His death sentance included treason under the Act of Supremacy of 1534 which made the King the Supreme head of the Church of England, rejected the Pope and charged anyone who opposed the King's church leadership with treason. He died by the hands of secular court.

Also Tyndale's death order had nothing to do with the translation of the bible actually (either because he did it or because it was heretical) he was charged with Heresy for a completely different work called "Treatise of Justification by Faith Only." (he had been charged with heresy many times over the years , but people fail to mention that heresy was pretty much a common occurance charge and not nessecarily adeath sentence) again by a secular court because treason to the Christian faith was treason to England under the Act of Supremacy. It was secular cour tthat charged him with heresy.

Tyndale's death and hersy charges were for the same thing Sir Thomas More (obviously Catholic died under. Tyndale's dying words were "Lord open the eyes of the King of England".

So now I ask you: Do you know bible translation history?

Answer 4

I felt it necessary to correct some misconceptions that others only mentioned.

"It was only by the authority of the Catholic Church, which collected the various books of Scripture in the fourth century, that we have a Christian Bible at all"
This statement, of course, is wholly unverifiable. First, let's agree that this was the pre-Roman Catholic Church (RCC), which I am content to term (as you do) the Catholic Church (CC). This church was, indeed, the first to assemble books into a bible - but it is wrong to claim that a bible would not have been compiled if the CC had not done so at this particular time. The fact is, the bible *is* a result of the efforts of the CC. However, it is sheer speculation to claim that we have a bible *only* because of the CC, and would not have a bible otherwise. One only has to examine the canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church to see that bibles can arise independently of the CC.

"And it is only because of the Church that the Bible survived and was taught for the many centuries before the printing press made it widely available."
Again, you are assuming that none of the other churches present at that time, or later, made any efforts to preserve scripture. They did. It is not only by the efforts of the RCC, but by the efforts of *all* the churches "descended" from the CC, some of which were already extant at the time of the Vulgate, that scripture was preserved throughout the centuries.

"John Wycliff ...was not an accurate rendering of sacred Scripture."
The same can be said for *any* translation. There is not a single translation of scripture that can reasonably claim 100% accuracy. This is because of the nature of translation. For you KJV-only-ers, the translators themselves recognized that their translation was faulty.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvpref.html
and had the sense to include alternate translations of *numerous* ambiguous passages in the margins.

Conclusion: this is an interesting post. I would recommend the following:
1) Clean up the logic, specifically of the statements which I pointed out. These statements are not verifiable (and, indeed, not logical).
2) Ease up on the "corrupt and full of heresy" statements, as they may unnecessarily offend some non-RCs - and is that what you want to do? Rather, point out that there were numerous errors in the translation, mention references (as you do in some cases), and mention doctrinal bias if (and only if) that is *clearly* present.
3) Although it is true that secular authorities executed Tyndale, his crime was heresy (source: HarperCollins Bible Dictionary (HCBD)), and so clearly religious intolerance was the reason for his execution.

This also from the HCBD:
"Readers if the English Bible owe more to Tyndale than to any other person in history. It is estimated that eighty percent of the King James (KJV) NT is Tyndale's work, and his influence is seen also in the OT."
It goes on. There are 2 points I wish to make with this: 1st, Tyndale's version had a profound effect on most later English language versions of the next 300 years (though not the Rheims-Douay you mentioned). 2nd, it proves the error of the statement made by another answer, "80% of the KJV New Testament is DIRECTLY taken from Tyndale." Quite the contrary, most was taken (directly) from the Bishop's Bible, a revision of the Great Bible, which was a revision of the Matthew Bible, which in turn was a revision of the Coverdale Bible, which was a revision of the Tyndale bible (source: HCBD). Thus, though 80% of the KJV NT *may* be from Tyndale, it certainly was not taken directly and, therefore, is most definitely conjectural.

The real "greatness" (if you choose to call it that) of Tyndale is that he wanted to make scripture accessible to the common man, and he wanted it done *now*, and he was willing to risk his life to accomplish this task. Was this arrogant? Absolutely. Was this a worthwhile idea? Absolutely! He should have "pushed" for this *within* the RCC, but his *goal* was a good one. As a direct result of his translation (and those that used it as a reference), the RCC felt it necessary (finally) to produce an authorized (by them) translation in English. I wonder, when do you think the Rheims-Douay version would have been published, if there were no pressure on the RCC (40 years worth) to do so?

Jim, http://www.jimpettis.com/wheel/

Answer 5

The amazing thing is that from inside the bible at 2007 after Christ, Moses was at Exodus 3560 years ago, [ year 2513 ], the bible has been in circulation in the world 396 years ending the last days and well into the time of the end.

History says from year 64, then the next pope after Saint Peter onto now, and if they had this bible that long, as to their religion, they do not have a clue as to the time in it or the meaning of the book, so as I look at history, I see God Almighty, handling things through the imperfections of man and it is going God way, so it does not have to be the best translation whaever that is, the KJV is good enough.

I thank God and everyone involved that we/ I have it.

Answer 6

hmm...
I have to agree with John S somewhat.

Whatever the gist of your point, some of what you say is simply wrong.
I'm no huge Tyndale fan but in his time the Bible was in Latin in England - for the rich and the scholars to read. They ruled over the normal everyday joe's, and average people did not read latin. Tyndale believed that the Bible should be available for every single person to read and so he set about to make an english translation in the language of the country.

He WAS burnt at the stake for heresy but only because the Church claimed he was a heretic for translating the Bible without their permission. His translation contains no such heresies.

Do you not agree that the Bible should be translated into the common language of the people?
Everything is perspective. But check Tyndale's translation and tell me what heresies he espouses!
What was he actually burned at the stake for?

Answer 7

Long before the Catholic church decided to put all the books into one big book the books considered inspired were know. All the Catholic church did was compile the books already considered inspired. The did not sit down and pick and choose. They said these books are accepted by the majority of the churches and put them together. Long before the synod at hippo or carthage there were lists of the books of the Bible. Below are some of the people who had composed lists.

* 326. Athanasius, bishop at Alexandria, mentions all of the New Testament books.
* 315-386. Cyril, bishop at Jerusalem, gives a list of all New Testament books except Revelation.
* 270. Eusebius, bishop at Caesarea, called the Father of ecclesiastical history, gives an account of the persecution of Emperor Diocletian whose edict required that all churches be destroyed and the Scriptures burned. He lists all the books of the New Testament. He was commissioned by Constantine to have transcribed fifty copies of the Bible for use of the churches of Constantinople.
* 185-254. Origen, born at Alexandria, names all the books of both the Old and New Testaments.
* 165-220. Clement, of Alexandria, names all the books of the New Testament except Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John. In addition we are told by Eusebius, who had the works of Clement, that he gave explanations and quotations from all the canonical books.
* 160-240. Turtullian, contemporary of Origen and Clement, mentions all the New Testament books except 2 Peter, James and 2 John.
* 135-200. Irenaeus, quoted from all New Testament books except Philemon, Jude, James and 3 John.
* 100-147. Justin Martyr, mentions the Gospels as being four in number and quotes from them and some of the epistles of Paul and Revelation.
* Besides the above, the early church fathers have handed down in their writings quotations from all the New Testament books so much so that it is said that the entire New Testament can be reproduced from their writings alone.


Also you state that if it were not for the RCC we would not have the Bible today. This would only be true if the Bible had been in the sole possession of the RCC throughout history. There are several Bibles that are complete and never belonged to the RCC. Included in these are the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrianus. Neither of which were ever in the possession of the RCC. In addition to claim that we would not have the Bible without the RCC means that you believe without the RCC then God would not have kept His promise to preserve His Word.

One final addition. The catholic church at the synods of hippo and carthage were not members of the RCC as known today. Also neither council was ecumenical and thus neither had the claim of "infallibility".

Answer 8

You are right, as usual.

And I also reiterate:

"These are corrupt translations, made with an agenda, and not accurate renderings of sacred Scripture."

Answer 9

Very informative.

I also noted ......
"These are corrupt translations, made with an agenda, and not accurate renderings of sacred Scripture."

Answer 10

Stick with the original language, that goes for any piece of literature. Much is lost in any translation.

Answer 11

As a translator myself, I know quite a bit about it...

Wyclif's Bible was NOT, as you claimed, "full of heresy." How do you support such a claim.

On Tyndale you state, "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."

Do you realize that 80% of the KJV New Testament is DIRECTLY taken from Tyndale?

"Gender inclusive" language is an issue with several modern translations ONLY BECAUSE PEOPLE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THE ORIGINAL WAS, IN FACT, INCLUSIVE.

Two Greek words, "adelphos" and "anthropos," commonly translated "brother" and "man" respectively, ARE INCLUSIVE. Their plural forms are to be considered gender inclusive unless the context requires another interpretation.

stpolycarp77: The Douay version of the New Testament was issued at Rheims in 1582, and the Old Testament in 1609, John Wyclif (sometimes spelled 'Wycliffe' ... or half a dozen other ways) DIED on 31 December, 1384, roughly 200 years earlier... How was Douay before Wyclif?

Since it seems to be an issue here, I'll explain a little more about it. Wyclif's Bible was the FIRST complete English Bible produced. It predated the printing press, so each copy was hand written, but we do have several complete copies of it. As with any manuscript document, there are variations between them, but the intended content of the 2 volume set in which it was done has been well established.

Wyclif was associated with a group called the "Lollards." These were a precursor of the 16th century "Reformation Movement," though they shared many ideas about scripture and the church. Many of the later statements of Luther and the other reformers found publication centuries earlier in the "Twelve Conclusions of the Lollards."

The Pentateuch and Gospels (at least, maybe there is more now) from Wyclif's Bible are available for download for the "Sword Project" at http://www.crosswire.org Anyone who is interested in the history of the Bible in English might enjoy reading and studying this bit of history for themselves.

Here is an excerpt -- Wyclif's Bible, John 1:1-5:

1 In the bigynnyng was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word. 2 This was in the bigynnyng at God. 3 Alle thingis weren maad bi hym, and withouten hym was maad no thing, that thing that was maad. 4 In hym was lijf, and the lijf was the liyt of men; and the liyt schyneth in derknessis, 5 and derknessis comprehendiden not it.

The spelling is a bit much, but if you sound out the words, you should be able to "catch" the meaning... I noticed that verse 1 is quite literal from the Greek (as was the Vulgate from which Wyclif translated his Bible). John reversed the word order of the last clause to emphasize the divinity of Jesus.

On "translation of the scriptures into the common language," the catholic church disagrees with its own history. The Vulgate was in fact itself JUST SUCH A TRANSLATION, as the name itself testifies, vulgate, related to vulgar or common. It WAS the common language of most of Europe and the Middle East at the time it was translated, following from "Koine," meaning common, the descriptor hung on the Greek in which the New Testament was composed.

Condemning the translation of the scriptures into "vernacular languages" was merely a tool to maintain power and control over the common people.