The History of the Catholic Bible in the British Isles

England has always been a Bible-loving country, and the MSS. produced by Irish and English copyists were, and still are, famous. The connection between the Irish Church and the monasteries of Corbey, St. Germain, and St. Gall is well known, and several of the famous MSS. which derive their names from those monasteries were written by Irish hands, while the Codex Aureus of the Gospels was, according to an Old-English note on the title page, bought in the reign of King Alfred for the use of Christ Church, Canterbury. The above mentioned MSS. give the Old Latin text. But those which give the Vulgate text are extraordinarily numerous; it is calculated that there are about 8000 in existence. About 180 of these are regarded as of high value, and it is worth noting that of these, no less than 23 are probably due to English copyists, while at least 30 are to be attributed to Irish copyists. Amongst these should be noted such famous MSS. as the Codex Amiatinus, written either at Wearmouth or Jarrow, the Lindisfarne Gospels, the Lickfield Gospels, the Stonyhurst St. John, the Books of Deer, Kells, Armagh, Durrow, Macdurnan, and Moling, and the Rushworth Gospels. Among English Biblical scholars whose names are held in veneration, we need only mention St. Benet Biscop, who, on returning from his fourth journey to Rome, in 678 A.D., furnished the Scriptoria, at Jarrow and at Wearmouth; the Abbot Ceolfrid, who caused the famous Codex Amiatinus to be copied and sent to Rome in 715 A.D.; the Venerable Bede, 735, whose Homilies on the Bible text were read in Church even during his life-time; and Alcuin, whose labors on the revision of the Vulgate text have given us the famous Alcuinian copies of the Bible, e.g., the Vallicellanus Codex of the Chiesa Nuova at Rome.

Anglo-Saxon Versions of the Bible

Caedmon, c. 680, paraphrased portions of Genesis, Exodus, and Daniel, which have been preserved to us. Venerable Bede translated at least the Gospels, as we know from the story of his death by his biographer, Abbot Cuthbert, but no fragment of his translation has come down to us. King Alfred, too, translated certain portions of Exodus and Acts, as a preface to his Code of Saxon laws; while we have a metrical version by Aelfric, Abbot of Peterborough and afterwards Archbishop of York in 1023, of large portions of the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Kings, Esther, Job, Judith, and Maccabees. There are remains, too, of Anglo-Norman translations of the Psalter and the Canticle of Canticles previous to 1200 A.D., while the Augustinian Canon, Orm. in the twelfth century, composed the so-called "Ormulum," a metrical paraphrase of the stories of the Bible. In the fourteenth century we have two versions of the Psalter, that of William of Shoreham, and that of Richard Rolle of Hampole, who died in 1349.

The Wycliff Bible

This brings us to the era of Wycliff. Protestant writers commonly insist that he was the first to translate the Bible into English, and that he did this in opposition to the Church which desired at all costs to keep the Bible from the people. This only too popular view is thus given with his usual exaggeration by Froude:

"Of the Gospels and Epistles so much only was known by the laity as was read in the church services, and that intoned as if to be purposely unintelligible to the understanding. Of the rest of the Bible, nothing was known at all, because nothing was supposed to be necessary."

How untrue and how unjust is this accusation may be gathered from the following brief notes:

1. We have already seen that there were translations of the Psalter in the 14th century.
   
   
2. We have also noticed the Anglo-Saxon versions.
   
   
3. It should be remembered that all who could read used French and Latin which were the official languages of the educated world; the people as a whole could not have read the Bible had it been put before them in any language.
   
   
4. The art of printing had not yet come in and the price of a manuscript Bible was prohibitive; we find £25 paid for just a Breviary in 1518 A.D.
   
   
5. Saint Thomas More says in his Dialogue (ed. 1530, p. 138),

   "The whole Bible was long before his (Wycliff's) days by virtuous and well learned men translated into the English tongue, and by good and godly people with devotion, and soberness, well and reverendly read."

   In another place he says:

   "As for old traditions before Wycliff's time, they remain lawful and be in some folk's hands. Myself have seen and can show you, Bibles, fair and old, in English, which have been known and seen by the Bishop of the Diocese and left in layman's hands and women's."

6. It is the fashion to say that Saint Thomas More was mistaken. But his witness is fully borne out by that of Cranmer, who in his prologue to the second edition of the Great Bible says:

   "If the matter should be tried by custom, we might also allege custom for the reading of the Scripture in the vulgar tongue, and prescribe the more ancient custom. For it is not much above one hundred years ago, since Scripture hath not been accustomed to be read in the vulgar tongue within this realm, and many hundred years before that, it was translated and read in the Saxon's tongue ... and when this language waxed old and out of common usage, because folk should not lack the fruit of reading, it was again translated into the newer "language, whereof yet also many copies remain and be daily found."

7. Even Foxe, the Martyrologist, makes the same acknowledgment:

   "If histories be well examined we shall find both before the Conquest and after, as well before John Wickliffe was born as since, the whole body of the Scriptures was by sundry men translated into our country tongue."

8. In the British Museum Catalogue of 1892, we find that the Museum possesses the following:
   
   
   • 11 German editions of the Bible dating from 1466-1518;
     
     
   • 3 Bohemian editions between 1488-1506;
     
     
   • 1 Dutch of 1477;
     
     
   • 5 French from 1510-1531;
     
     
   • 7 Italian from 1471-1532.
   
   All these are, of course, pre-Lutheran; they are Catholic versions in different languages. It must be remembered, too, that they only represent a fraction of the copies which exist, they are merely those which the Museum has collected in the course of years.
   
   
9. No proof has ever been brought forward to show that the Church forbade, or even discouraged, the translation of the Bible into the vernacular. This may come as a surprise even to Catholics, for we have been accustomed to hear the very opposite all our lives! But the proof is easy.
   
   In A.D. 1408, the Council of Oxford, under Archbishop Arundel, published the following Constitution:

   "It is dangerous, as St. Jerome declares, to translate the text of Holy Scripture out of one idiom into another, since it is not easy in translations to preserve exactly the same meaning in all things. ... We therefore command and ordain that henceforth no one translate any text (it is question of passages, texta in the heading of the Constitution) of Holy Scripture into English or any other language in a book, booklet, or tract, and that no one read any book, booklet, or tract of this kind lately made in the time of the said John Wycliff or since, or that hereafter may be made either in part or wholly, either publicly or privately, under pain of excommunication, until such translation shall have been approved and allowed by the diocesan of the place, or (if need be), by the Provincial Council. He who shall act otherwise let him be punished as an abettor of heresy and error."

   Saint Thomas More's comment on this law is striking:

   "And this is a law that so many long have spoken of, and so few have in all this while sought to seek (or find out) whether they say the truth or no. For I trust that in this law you see nothing unreasonable. For it neither forbids the translations to be read that were already well done of old before Wycliff's days, nor damns his because it was new, but because it was naught(y); nor prohibits new to be made, but provides that they shall not be read, if they be made amiss, till they be, by good examination, amended."

10. It has been shown almost to demonstration that the so-called Wycliffite Bibles, of which something like 200 copies exist, are really nothing else than old English orthodox Bibles; that Wycliff himself has only the most shadowy of claims ever to have translated more than the Gospels; and that even the famous Bible reposing on its velvet cushion, in the King's Library at the British Museum and labeled: The English Bible, Wycliffe's translation, is but an orthodox Catholic Bible dating from a time before Wycliff. For proof of this astounding statement we must refer the reader to Abbot Gasquet's papers on The Pre-Reformation English Bible. We will content ourselves here with but one of the many arguments which he has brought forward in support of his view. St. Thomas More, when combating the oft-repeated statement that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners burnt every copy of the Bible on which they could lay hands, says: "If this were done so it were not well done; but ... I believe that ye mistake it." And in answer to the objection that the Bible of a Lollard named Hun was burnt in the Bishop of London's prison, he says:

    "This I remember well, that ... there were in the prologue of that Bible such words touching the Blessed Sacrament as good Christian men did abhor to hear, and that gave the readers undoubted occasion to think that the book was written after Wycliff's copy and by him translated into our tongue, and that this Bible was destroyed not because it was in English, but because it contained gross and manifest heresy"

    From this it is clear that the Wycliffite Bibles, i.e., those which emanated from him or his followers, were distinctly heretical, as indeed the whole history supposes. But the existing Bibles bear no trace of any heretical tendency! The conclusion is inevitable. These Bibles are not Wycliffite at all, but pure, orthodox, Catholic, pre-Reformation Bibles. This conclusion is startling but it is supported by a wealth of learning on the part of Abbot Gasquet, and if further proof were wanting it would be found in the attempts at replies by Mr. Matthew in the English Historical Review for Jan. 1895, Mr., now Sir F. G. Kenyon in Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, and the Rev. J. H. Lupton in Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, Extra vol., s.v., Versions (English).

The Douay Rheims Bible

The Catholic version of the Bible is commonly known as the Douay, but as a matter of fact the New Testament was translated at Rheims, and published in 1582, while the Old Testament was published only in 1609, and at Douay.

Four great names are inseparably connected with this translation, viz., those of William Allen, Gregory Martin, Richard Bristow, and Thomas Worthington.

William Allen was Principal of St. Mary's Hall at Oxford, when he was obliged to fly from the country owing to his staunchness in the Catholic faith. After a stay at Louvain and a brief spell in England, he settled down at Douay, where he rendered historic service to the Catholic cause in England by founding Douay Seminary. He was summoned to Rome by Sixtus V who made him a Cardinal; Gregory XIV placed him on the commission for the revision of the Sixtine Vulgate, and his name occurs in the famous inscription at Zagorola, commemorating the work of this commission.

Gregory Martin was one of the Foundation-scholars of St. John's, Oxford; his reputation for learning was very great, but he gave up all the opportunities offered by the University for conscience sake; before leaving he wrote to Campion, the future martyr:

"If we two can live together we can live on nothing; and if this is too little, I have money; but if this also fails, one thing remains : they that sow in tears shall reap in joy."

From Oxford Martin went to Douay, where he was ordained in 1573; in 1576 he was summoned to Rome by Gregory XIII to assist in the formation of the English College. Two years later he went to Rheims whither the Douay College had been removed, and there he began the work of translating the Bible into English. His hard work and laborious days as Professor undermined a constitution already delicate, and Martin died at Rheims, Oct. 28th, 1582, shortly after the publication of the New Testament.

Richard Bristow entered at Oxford in 1555, and he and Campion were accounted the greatest lights of the University in their day; they were selected to hold a public disputation before Queen Elizabeth, on occasion of her visit to the City in 1566. Like the others, however, Bristow was compelled to flee the country, and in 1569 he joined Allen at Douay, and became his chief support. To him we owe the very polemical notes which appeared in the early editions of the New Testament. The work at Douay, combined with his labors on the New Testament, destroyed Bristow's health, and he died on Oct. 15th, 1581, at Harrow, at the early age of forty-three.

Thomas Worthington passed from Oxford to Douay in 1572. He later went on the English mission and suffered the terrible torment of remaining in the pit for over two months. When released he returned to Douay, where he became President of the Seminary. To him we owe the notes appended to the Old Testament. He died in 1626.

To these four men, then, we owe the Douay Bible. Martin appears to have been responsible for the whole translation, though there are reasons for thinking that the other Professors also contributed their share. Bristow wrote the notes to the New Testament, Worthington those to the Old. To Allen fell the onerous task of providing the funds for the undertaking and of correcting his companions' work.

To appreciate at its true worth the translation they produced we must bear in mind the following points. These exiles were the pick of the University which had driven them out, they were most learned men. Further, they were Apostles in the truest sense of the term, for their whole lives were devoted to the cause of the Catholic faith; we have seen how both Martin and Bristow died at a very early date as the result of their strenuous labors and we can well term them "martyrs." Again, they all lived in an atmosphere of controversy such as even in these days we can hardly understand. The heretics had their translations and, in Allen's own words, "have at their finger tips every text of Scripture which appears to make for them, and that, too, in some heretical version; more over, by stringing passages together and changing the Sacred text, they make it seem as though they were saying nothing but what was in the Bible."

Consequently there was a feeling of unrest abroad among Catholics; men began to fear lest the true Scriptures were being withheld from them. These considerations compelled the Douay Professors to present a translation direct from the original, as literal as possible, and replete with notes to illustrate the controverted points. Allen, writing in 1578, says:

"We could remedy these evils if we, too, had a Catholic version of the Bible, for all the English versions are most corrupt. ... If His Holiness shall judge it expedient we will ourselves endeavor to have the Bible truly and genuinely translated according to the Church's approved edition, for we have amongst us men most fit for the work ... it seems safer that men should have a faithful and Catholic translation rather than that they should use corrupt versions to their peril, if not to their destruction. Moreover the dangers arising from difficult passages could be met by suitable notes."

In the margin of the Douay Diary for October, 1578, we find: Oct. 16th, or thereabouts, Mr. Martin, Licentiate, began the translation of the Bible into English; thus at length we shall be enabled to meet the corruptions which the heretics have now for so long a time unfortunately forced upon nearly all our countrymen. In order that this work, an exceedingly useful one, may appear as quickly as possible, he undertakes to translate two chapters a day; and in order to secure its accuracy, our President, Mr. Allen, and also Mr. Bristow, undertake to diligently read the said chapters and faithfully to correct anything which may seem to call for it.

In the Diary for March, 1582, we find the startlingly brief entry: "This month the last touches were put to the English translation of the New Testament."

Allen writes later that the cost of printing, etc., will amount to about £3000 of our present money.

We pointed out above that the translators were compelled to put before the people a translation which should as closely as possible give the words of the original. But they translated directly from the Latin Vulgate and not from the Greek we are speaking here of the New Testament only; the reasons they allege for so doing are interesting: we present them in an abbreviated form:

"We translate the old vulgar Latin text, not the common Greek text, for these causes:

1. Its antiquity, it has been in use 1300 years.
   
   
2. It is that corrected by St. Jerome.
   
   
3. It is therefore that commended by St. Augustine in a letter to St. Jerome.
   
   
4. It has always been used in Church services, in commentaries, sermons, etc.
   
   
5. The Council of Trent declared it authentic.
   
   
6. It is the most majestic, most grave, and most impartial of all translations.
   
   
7. It adheres so closely to the Greek as almost to merit the censure of being slavish. In this respect it compares favorably with the Protestant translations.
   
   
8. Even such opponents to Catholicism as Theodore Beza prefer it to any other.
   
   
9. Even Luther was forced to acknowledge that if everybody continued to translate at his own pleasure men would have to reinstate the old Councils in order to preserve the unity of faith.
   
   
10. It is not only better than all other Latin translations, but than the Greek itself in those places where they disagree."

At the same time the translators paid attention to the Greek text, as the original notes, now removed, fully prove, and as the translators themselves announce on their title page.

The excessive literalness of the translations and the very Latin expressions which disfigured it, urged Dr. Challoner to revise the work. He himself published six editions of the revised text, between 1749 and 1777. But Dr. Challoner's revision was very drastic, and while he rendered good and indeed necessary service he undoubtedly weakened the nervous and forcible English of the original Elizabethan translators. Dr. Challoner's revision is the one now universally followed, indeed since its publication only the two editions published with Dr. Troy's sanction have varied from it. We may mention a few of the best known editions. The original New Testament was published in 1582, reprinted in 1600, 1621, 1633, 1638, 1788, 1834 in New York by a Protestant for controversial purposes, and in 1872 in parallel columns with the Vulgate by Bagster. Challoner's editions came between 1749 and 1777; those of Dr. Troy between 1783 and 1810. Dr. Hay's edition in 1761, and reprinted up till 1817. The well-known Haydock's Bible began to appear in 1811, and has been reprinted often. From 1825 we have Dr. Murray's editions which passed into those of Drs. Denvir and Crolly; lastly came Wiseman's edition in 1847, he mainly followed Dr. Troy. A new edition is much called for, as well as a careful revision of the translation.

Chronological Table of Anglo-Saxon and English Versions of the Bible

1. c. 680. Caedmon's paraphrases.
2. c. 700. Psalter by St. Aldhelm(?).
3. d. 735. Ven. Bede.
4. c. 900. King Alfred.
5. c. 950. The Anglo-Saxon interlinear translation found in the Lindisfarne Gospels, and apparently reproduced in the Rushworth Gospels.
6. c. 1020. The versions of Aelfric.
7. c. 1320. Psalter of William of Shoreham.
8. c. 1320. Psalter of Richard Rolle of Hampole, d. 1349.
9. Various Catholic Versions of the whole Bible testified to by Saint Thomas More, Cranmer, and Foxe. See above.
10. c. 1380. Wycliff (?) the Gospels (?).
11. c. 1382. Nicholas of Hereford (?) translation of whole Bible down to Baruch 3:20 (?); he is supposed to have assisted Wycliff.
12. c. 1388. John Purvey (?) a revision of the work of Wycliff (?) and Nicholas of Hereford (?).
13. 1525-26. Tindale, the first printed English New Testament.
14. 1530. Tindale, the Pentateuch, printed at Marburg.
15. 1531. Tindale, the Book of Jonas, printed at Antwerp (?).
16. 1535. Tindale, two editions of his revised New Testament.
17. 1535. Coverdale, two editions of the whole Bible from the Dutch and Latin; he depended much on the Vulgate, Luther, Tindale, and the translation from the Hebrew by the Dominican Santes Pagninus.
18. 1537. Matthew, or John Rogers, the whole Bible; practically a re-edition of the work of Coverdale and Tindale.
19. 1539. Taverner, a new edition of Matthew's Bible.
20. 1539. The Great Bible, prepared at the command of Cromwell by Coverdale. Seven editions appeared between 1539 and 1541; these, with the exception of the first, had a Preface by Cranmer, hence they are sometimes spoken of as Cranmer's Bibles. In the Great Bible the Old Testament was Coverdale's edition of 1535 with changes derived from Matthew's Bible of 1537 and from the Latin translation by Sebastian Munster. The New Testament was a combination of that of Tindale in 1534 with that of Coverdale in 1535; considerable assistance was also derived from the work of Erasmus.
21. 1557. Whittingham's New Testament, produced at Geneva; this was of course a Puritan work.
22. 1560. The whole Genevan Bible appeared in this year; it was translated from the Hebrew and Greek, and from its handy size and print became speedily very popular. The Old Testament was founded on that of Tindale, the New on that already published by Whittingham, but both were revised.
23. 1568. The Bishops Bible was a set off to the Genevan Bible. It was due to the activity of Archbishop Parker, and other editions of it appeared in 1569 and 1572.
24. 1582. The Rheims New Testament.
25. 1600. A second edition of the Rheims New Testament.
26. 1609. The Douay Old Testament.
27. 1611. The Authorized version, or King James Bible. This is the Bible which has remained in use ever since. It was the outcome of all the previous translations, especially of the Rheims New Testament as has been lately demonstrated by Carleton, The Part of Rheims in the Making of the English Bible, Clarendon Press, 1902. The Douay Old Testament was not in the hands of the framers of the Authorized version.
28. 1749-50. Dr. Challoner's revision of the Rheims and Douay versions.
29. 1881. The revised version of the New Testament.
30. 1885. The revised version of the Old Testament.

by
Very Rev. Hugh Pope, O.P., S.T.M.
Doctor in Sacred Scripture,
Member of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, and
late Professor of New Testament Exegesis at the Collegio Angelico, Rome.