This is an opportunity(I hope) to continue the discussion of the mechanism of the Word of God by the Anglo-Saxons.
Shall we keep the theme Sola Scriptura and minimize the KJVO?
"Sanctify them in Thy Truth. Thy Word is Truth."(Jesus to the Father, re: His disciples)
What have we done with The Word of God?
Selah,
Bro. James
History of The English Bible
Discussion in 'History Forum' started by Bro. James, Nov 29, 2007.
-
Bro. James Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Eadig byð se wer
Happy is the man
þe ne gæð on geþeaht unrihtwisra,
That walks not in the counsel of the unrighteous
ne on þam wege ne stent synfulra,
Nor stands in the way of the sinful
ne on heora wolbærendum setle ne sitt;
or sits in the seat of the scoffers
Ac his willa byð on godes æ,
but he delights in the law of God
and ymb his æ he byð smeagende dæges and nihtes.
and on his law he meditates day and night.
Psalm 1:1,2 (in Anglo-Saxon)
Every wonder why the New American Standard Version isn't called the NASB?
The verses above are from the New Anglo-Saxon Bible (NASB) [LINK]
Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
John 17:17 AV 1873 :laugh:
Rob -
I don't think that designation is about to change, anytime soon, as the NASB adopted this moniker in 1971, when the entire Bible was finished, as opposed to only the NT.
(I do wonder how the NKJV, KJ21, NCV, NLV, CEV, and ESV can all manage to get by with only one Copyright each, however.) Again, :rolleyes:
http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/?action=getVersionInfo&vid=49
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_American_Standard_Bible
So, personally, for any potential "New Anglo-Saxon Bible" with that intended moniker, "I kinda' got me an idear that the designation of 'NASB', ain't gonna' fly!", as we hillbillies in KY might say. :D
Ed -
Bro. James Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
The Word of God--in English
The input thus far has been interesting. Shall we bring the academia level down to about 12th grade, so this La. hillbilly can comprehend?
Questions: Is there more than one source of manuscripts for the English translations which exist? If so, what are they? Also, what is the significance of these sources? Are there differences in the manuscripts? Why?
God is not the author of confusion.
Selah,
Bro. James -
Rarefied Air
LA actually has hills?? :confused:
Driskell Mtn. at 563 ft. is actually considered a hill? :laugh: :laugh:
Ed -
Bro. James Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Yes Sir, hills--alluvial, made from topsoil from up North, including Kentucky. If one lives in New Orleans, which is mostly below sea level, a hill would be more like a levee--which is what failed when Katrina went through Aug. 05. Why do people insist on dwelling below sea level?
Back to English Bibles--Why were Wycliffe, Tyndale, etal, so viciously persecuted for providing a Bible in the common vernacular? It sure seems someone was trying to coverup something.
Comments?
Bro. James -
In short, I think Wyclif and Tyndale were persecuted to the degree, that they were, because the Roman church, at least as to the 'powers that be' (a phrase actually coined by Tyndale) at the top, rightly recognized that they were a threat to her authority, influence, power, wealth, and control. If one could read the Bible in "the vulgar tongues", one did not need 'Rome' to interpret what was being said, and might actually think for themselves. And Wyclif was politically and generally academically able (as well as theologically able), and opposed the continuing attempts by Rome to control the state. However, his attempts at 'reformation' were not universally welcome, even in the secular world.
Tyndale, on the other hand, was probably not as politically able (or connected) as was Wyclif a century and a half before. But he was undoubtedly a better linguist, including being fluent in at least 8 languages.
And both, especially Tyndale, were associated with, and in the genesis of the Reformation, with Tyndale being associated with both Erasmus, and Luther, for right or wrong, and that perceived sympathy with such as Luther did less than nothing to endear him with Rome, either.
Ed -
First question - Of Course. At least among extant manuscripts, in the sense I think you are meaning this.
The rest of the questions, I'll sort of all roll into one convoluted, "confusing" answer. ;)
The Wycliffe Bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate descended from the efforts of Jerome, in its entirety. The Tyndale Bible was translated from the labors of Erasmus, and the tradition of what would become known as the Textus Receptus for the NT, and mostly the available Hebrew texts for the OT, with the Apocrypha from extant Greek texts that were available. Missing gaps were usually supplied from the Vulgate, I presume, in the OT and Apocrypha. The Hebrew texts that Tyndale had to work with, were not exactly the highest quality ever, from what I understand.
And no two manuscripts, again, from what I been led to understand, is exactly identical with any other, for the simple reason that each and every manuscript is/was hand copied, an easy and understandable way for totally unintended variants to sneak in, at the best efforts.
Hope that helps a bit.
Ed