Talk:Early Modern English Bible translations

Two

There seems to be two entries for the "douai" and "great" bibles. Any one else catch this?

sam 06:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

-I've tried to integrate the material described. There was also some redundancy in the Tyndale section that I tried to clear out. Yahnatan 19:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Politics

Why is there no mention of the political setting around the first english version of the bible? The text as is suggests that Tynedale's translations were only condemned by the Catholic church due to a few differences of opinion over how it should be translated; the fact the Catholic church opposed ANY translation from latin is not mentioned. (otherwise, why didn't they create a "corrected" version). The printing of an English bible was tightly linked to the same backlash against the Catholic church that lead to the Protestant Reformation. The only reason the Great Bible was not condemned was due to the break from Catholic church.[unsigned]

1911

This article, together with several others on early English Bibles, gave the impression of depending too heavily on the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911, and of misinterpreting its sources. Some errors seemed to have rippled through from one article to another. The articles in question include those on the Matthew Bible, Jacobus van Meteren, and the Great Bible.

There has been a lot of Bible research since 1911. A more reliable starting point for research in this area is Herbert's extremely detailed and careful Historical Catalogue of Printed Editions of the English Bible 1525–1961, dating from 1968. I have therefore edited the articles in question so that they at least no longer contradict Herbert, although they still contain unsourced material that is not supported by Herbert. Also it was necessary to create an article on the Coverdale Bible of 1535, with a link from this article.

The Jacobus van Meteren article and others referred to the 'Coverdale Old Testament' of 1535 as if it was a separately published book, and (presumably for that reason) incorrectly made the Matthew Bible (1537) the first complete English Bible. (If there was a separate 'Coverdale Old Testament', it has escaped Herbert's notice.) The Coverdale Bible and the Great Bible are distinct. If other authors know of later sources that update or improve on Herbert, those sources should be named.EEye 13:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Bishops' Bible (1534)

Not to be confused with the translation of 1568 commonly known as the Bishops' Bible. Henry VIII remained implacably hostile to Tyndale's bible - both because of Tyndale's preference for non-ecclesiastical vocabulary, and also on account of his attacks on Henry's divorce from Catherine of Aragon - and in 1530 Tyndale's New Testament was officially condemned, with the explicit intention that other learned and catholic persons should be engaged to do the job properly. However, in the absence of an acceptable alternative, it proved very difficult to prevent Tyndale's New Testament from circulating in secret. In 1534, therefore, Thomas Cranmer initiated a programme to produce a rival, officially authorised, English New Testament; dividing up the task of translation between ten diocesan bishops. No part of this version survives, but it appears to have consisted of a thorough revision of Tyndale towards much more consistency with the Vulgate text. Stephen Gardiner reported to Thomas Cromwell that he had completed his allocated part (the Gospels of Luke and John) in June 1535, but other bishops missed their deadlines, while John Stokesley refused to undertake his own allocation (the Acts of the Apostles) on principle. By 1537, Cranmer commented to Thomas Cromwell that the bishops could not be expected to complete their work till "the day after Doomsday"; and that accordingly some other means would need to be employed to respond to the King's stated wishes.

The above was removed from the article because there was and is no such Bible. It was a failed attempt.
—Telpardec  TALK  22:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)