History of The English Bible

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

 

In fact, Bible Gateway, and Wikipedia both identify the Lockman Foundation translation (or version) [Copyright 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 - making it the most Copyrighted version of which I'm aware, with 10 - count 'em, 10, surpassing the Amplified (AMP), which is also 'owned' by the Lockman Fundation, with 6 Cs. , and the fast closing Message (MSG) which has 7 Cs. ( I'll say for the multiple Cs.)] as the NASB, and the version has been known as this for over 35 years.

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,

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.

Ed

 

Rarefied Air

"hillbilly"?

LA actually has hills??

Driskell Mtn. at 563 ft. is actually considered a hill? :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

Yeah, you would have to want to get serious. {Sigh!}

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

 

Well, I'll do my best to elevate my academia level up to about 12th grade, but it will undoubtedly take a good deal of effort for me to achieve that lofty level. :laugh:

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