First bible translated from latin into english

Does anyone know when this was done? Who translated it? And where it is today?

Not asking for much. :stuck_out_tongue:

Couldn’t find anything from the web, too confusing. :bigyikes:

Thank you.

I could be wrong, but probably the Lollards, who are descended from John Wycliff’s teachings. So we’re talking about 14th century here. That is, if you are talking about an English translation of the entire Bible. There were other translations before, but only of segments or certain books. And most of those were into Old English.

I don’t know much about the manuscript transmission though. But I’m pretty sure there are no printed modern editions of the text.

The first complete English translation of the Bible was by John Wycliffe. Sections of the translation began appearing in 1382 until the entire Bible was translated in 1395. This translation was one of the major reforms called for by the Lollard movement, which was led by Wycliffe. The Lollards were eventually condemned for various heresies, and Wycliffe was executed. More than 250 copies of this Bible are known to still exist. However… this Bible was written in Middle English, not modern English.

Modern English developed between 1400 and 1500, and there were a number of translations that came about in the early 1500s. All of these were Protestant translations. These included:

The Tyndale Bible: Between 1526 and 1536.

The Great Bible: 1539

The Geneva Bible: 1560

The Bishop’s Bible: 1568

The first official Catholic translation of the Bible into English was the Douay-Rheims Bible, which was completed by 1582, but not fully published until 1610.

The Authorized, or King James Version of the Bible, arguably the most famous English version of the Bible ever (albeit a Protestant translation), came out one year later in 1611.

Thank you for that detailed list. :slight_smile:

This might be changing the subject, but I’ve seen a couple of posts who mention “protestant translations.” While I’m not ignorant that some translations of scripture take liberty with the words to promote certain agendas, how does this happen? How is it that scripture can be manipulated to have a Protestant slant or a Catholic slant, and so on? And how are to know which one is the correct translation?

Just to be fair – since this summary might be misinterpreted to mean that there were no English-language translations of the Bible until Protestants started translating it (that is, that the claim that the Catholic Church forbade vernacular translations is accurate) – it’s probably valuable to note that there were translations into English prior to these. They might not have been translations of the complete Bible, and they weren’t intended for mass publication (after all, they predated the printing press!), but there were translations into Old English by the Venerable Bede, and the ‘Lindesfarne Gospels’ was a translation of the Gospels into English.

‘Footnotes’ and ‘commentary’ come to mind. In addition to the notion of “taking liberty with the words”, certain agendas can be disseminated by virtue of the commentary provided therein. That would mean that it is more a ‘Protestant edition’ than a ‘Protestant Bible’, of course, but the end effect is the same.

Is there anywhere I can read some documents referring to what I bolded? What I mean is, were there Popes or Bishops who spoke on the topic forbidding such?

If not, then why ban different languages? If a Bible could be read in Latin (though there were limited Bibles) why did they care about English?

Also, it seems that Wycliffe and the Lollards were the first, which is odd considering how powerless they were. This only opens up more questions like, what happened to the Lollards and why? Were the Lollards treated how Christ would have them treated? Why was Wycliffe banned from Oxford (if my memory serves me correctly) for what can only be considered scholarly work.

And finally, why was Luther the first to make a big deal out of translating (well) the Latin to German?

Sorry, lots of questions. But the persecution, sanctioned by the Church on early (Protestant?) Christians has always interested me.

I think the poster means translation from Greek and Hebrew.
That is why if you are Catholic you should have a Catholic edition of the Holy Bible.
Also most protestant bibles do not have the deutercannonical books.
The episcopal and anglicans use Bibles with the Apocrypha.

In the original Greek, paradosis means “tradition.” Well, in the NIV Bible, everywhere tradition is condemned (as in the traditions of men), paradosis is correctly translated as “tradition.” But when tradition is seen as a positive thing (like in 2 Thess 2:15–“hold to the paradosis we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or letter”), all of a sudden paradosis is translated as “teachings,” even though the Greek word for “teachings” is didache.

I can’t help thinking it’s an attempt to downplay the Catholic doctrine of holding fast to both Scripture and Tradition. I for one would not like to stand before God on Judgment Day and explain why I had deliberately mistranslated His Word.

FWIW, one of the main reasons that the Catholic Church didn’t translate the Bible into other languages before the printing press, was because the Mass (and all the Bible readings) was always done in Latin, everywhere in the world (even up until Vat II). This made it easier for people to be able to go to Mass and understand what was being said, even if they were visiting a foreign country. At that point in time, almost everyone, especially Catholics, spoke at least some Latin as a second language. Since most people could never afford to have a Bible in their homes, each Parish usually only had one, just to read from during Mass. If anyone wanted to read the Bible on their own, they had to do it in the Church. (Bibles were often chained to the pulpit so they wouldn’t be stolen and sold.)

=SAVINGRACE;12902562]Does anyone know when this was done? Who translated it? And where it is today?

Not asking for much. :stuck_out_tongue:

Couldn’t find anything from the web, too confusing. :bigyikes:

Thank you.

There were unapproved translations from the 12th century on.

OFFICIALLY the Douay Rheims which was published in the late 16th Century after the Council of TRENT, which clarified ALL of our Catholic Doctrines and Dogmas to off-set the influence of Martin Luther’s successful Launch of Protestantism. Other had attempted to do this earlier but with VERY limited success.

The Douay Bible was published about 50 years before the King James publication.

The Catholic Church prior to the Douay held to only the trained could read and teach the bible. But knowing that Luther’s efforts were aimed at permitting EVERYONE to read and self interpret the bible desired to get a jump on what they were doing with their altered bible.

In hind site, this was a very prudent decision. Looking at the number of Protestant church’s that result from varying understandings of what the bible teaches.

2 Peter 1: 17-20 “For he received from God the Father, honour and glory: this voice coming down to him from the excellent glory: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. And this voice we heard brought from heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount. And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation”.

KING JAMES "16For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:Knowing this first,** that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
**

ACTS 20:28 [DOUAY] “Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood”

KING JAMES:** Take heed therefore unto yourselves**, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them"

Here’s a FREE site for the DOUAY: .drbo.org/

God Bless you,

Patrick

If you are interested in really early Bible translations into English, WordHorde:The Anglo-Saxon Bible is your one stop shop. :slight_smile:

The site also includes some for-fun new translations, so read the notes carefully.

There probably were glosses available in English for all the books of the Bible, but of course most Old English Bibles and Biblical literature were destroyed by Henry VIII’s men.

It’s not that some translations take liberties and some don’t, though some take more (or less reasonable) liberties than others. To translate is to take liberty. It is to try to capture the meaning of one set of words in another set of words. Furthermore, the second set of words is in a different language, and in the case of the Bible shaped by a radically different culture divided from the culture that produced the first set of words by many centuries.

I don’t think that most “laypeople” (i.e., people without linguistic and/or historical training, and/or who don’t have extensive experience translating or at least speaking/writing in a foreign language) have a good understanding of just how complex this process is. People speak as if you can just find the right equivalent and thus produce something that is exactly the same as the original.

So, for instance, people will say, “Luther added ‘alone’ to Romans 3:28,” when in fact the word “alone” doesn’t occur in either the original or in Luther’s translation. Nor did Luther simply “add” one word, as if the rest of what he (or any other translator) wrote was the same as what was already there.

To translate is to add words, or rather to subtract one set of words and add another set.

So obviously this process will be deeply shaped by your assumptions about reality and language in general, and particularly your assumptions about the meaning of the text you are translating. So yes, there are Catholic and Protestant translations. However, a Catholic translation isn’t only going to be shaped by the Catholic biases of its translators, but by all the other assumptions and predilections and scholarly opinions and personal quirks that they may have. For instance, the NAB (the most commonly used Bible in American Catholic churches) Sirach 42:14 is translated in such a way as to play down the misogyny (“better a man’s harshness than a woman’s indulgence, a frightened daughter than any disgrace”) while the NRSV translates it much more harshly (“Better is the wickedness of a man than a woman who does good; it is woman who brings shame and disgrace”). Hard to avoid the conclusion that the Catholic NAB translators were in part motivated by the desire to soften a text that has canonical status for them. On the other hand, in Genesis 1:2 the NAB translates “ruach Elohim” as “a mighty wind,” which clearly goes against a Catholic (or any historic Christian) reading of the text. That doesn’t mean that they had no bias in that translation, though, or even that their Catholicism didn’t affect the translation in complex ways (many Catholic Biblical scholars feel quite free to develop their scholarship in ways that may seem to undercut traditional doctrines, because of the Catholic doctrine that revelation is found in Tradition as well as in Scripture–of course, the Catholics on this forum find this a reprehensible attitude).

To the OP’s question: the first complete translation was indeed Wycliffe’s, but there were quite extensive partial translations in the Anglo-Saxon period, and less extensive but still substantial ones later in the Middle Ages before Wycliffe.

Edwin

Ad 995.

Perhaps; but, to his question, one way to ‘slant’ your translation is to have commentary that diverges from Church teaching. :shrug:

That is why if you are Catholic you should have a Catholic edition of the Holy Bible.

Like the NAB, which some Catholics really, really dislike because of its footnotes? :wink:

Also most protestant bibles do not have the deutercannonical books.

Nowadays, but not in the time of the translations in question, right?

Is there anywhere I can read some documents referring to what I bolded? What I mean is, were there Popes or Bishops who spoke on the topic forbidding such?
[/quote]

No, not really. That’s why the claim doesn’t stand. There are statements forbidding unauthorized translations of the Bible, or distribution of already-existing unauthorized versions; but, those who look at these statements and attempt to claim that they’re a blanket condemnation of any and all vernacular translations… well, they’re just making up those accusations out of thin air, as the historical record of vernacular translations sanctioned by the Church easily demonstrates.

If not, then why ban different languages? If a Bible could be read in Latin (though there were limited Bibles) why did they care about English?

Not ‘different languages’, per se – just unauthorized translations into vernacular languages.

And finally, why was Luther the first to make a big deal out of translating (well) the Latin to German?

Because his claim was that the Catholic Church had diverged from the true meaning of the Scriptures, wasn’t it? I mean, in his letter (to whom, I don’t recall at the moment) defending the addition of ‘faith alone’ (on the basis that this is how Germans really talked), really says “I know the meaning better than the Church, and therefore, I must champion a translation that fits that meaning”… doesn’t it?

Thank you. This was what I was seeking. Don’t know where that first Douay-Rheims Bible is today? :thumbsup:

You can find it online HERE. I don’t think there are any major changes made in this copy of it. Except, of course, the footnotes that were added by Bishop Richard Challoner, 1749-52.

It was the 8th century by Aldhelm, the Bishop of Sherborne, and Bede. A 9th
century translation of the Bible into English (Anglo-Saxon the dialect of its time) was made by Alfred. A tenth century translation into English was made by Aelfric. By 1361 A.D. a translation of most of Scripture in the English dialect (Anglo-Norman) of its time had been executed. source

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.