Take the 2-minute tour ×
Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

The Coverdale Translation and the Great Bible were both the work of Miles Coverdale. To the best of my knowledge Coverdale relied heavily on the works of other translators, especially William Tyndale.

This raises the question in my mind whether his translation of the Bible was actually done from original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts or if he relied on the works of previous translators as his source material.

This article seems to indicate the original languages were used:

The "Great Bible" Printed in 1539 AD: The First English Language Bible Authorized for Public Use (80 Books). It has the following disclaimer: The Bible in English, that is to say the content of all the holy scripture, both of the old and new testament, truly translated after the verity of the Hebrew and Greek texts.

However this seems unlikely given that the Catholic Church had banned translations except the Latin Vulgate for 1000 years. Is there actual evidence that Coverdale made his translation from original Hebrew and Greek scriptures or was the Latin Vulgate his source?

share|improve this question

migrated from christianity.stackexchange.com Dec 28 '13 at 8:31

This question came from our site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more.

1  
Given the telltale eccentricities of the Vulgate vs Hebrew/Greek manuscripts it shouldn't be too hard to reverse engineer how the translation was made. Indeed identifying the source path of most translations is usually easy enough to do as any intermediate language is going to leave its fingerprints. –  Caleb Dec 28 '13 at 8:47
    
@ Caleb I am sure that is true for one who has studied hermeneutics and knows how to look for the nuances. On the other hand for someone like me who has not it is a bit beyond my capabilities, which is my reason for asking. –  Bye Dec 30 '13 at 18:59
    
Hmmm I wasn't trying to criticize your question, sorry if that came over wrong. I migrated it here because I thought it deserved a look from this sites niche expertise! Even knowing quite a bit of Latin and using the Vulgate on a regular basis I may not be able to answer this myself, I can only say that this should be possible for the right expert to answer and confirm. –  Caleb Dec 30 '13 at 19:03
    
@ Caleb there was no indignation in my comment and if you perceived any I apologize that was not my intent. –  Bye Dec 30 '13 at 19:12

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

There is a brief but reliable account of the production of the Great Bible in S. L. Greenslade (ed.), The Cambridge History of the Bible: Volume 3, The West from the Reformation to the Present Day (Cambridge University Press, 1963), pp. 150-152.* Greenslade also wrote this chapter on English versions in the 16th C. (It's a very common work, and should be in most public and all university libraries.)

It appears that Coverdale (who did know his Hebrew and Greek) used the Matthew Bible as the basis for the Great Bible, revising it against "Münster's annotated Hebrew-Latin Bible of 1535 to correct the Old Testament and Erasmus for the New" (Greenslade, p. 152).

So, while not a "fresh" translation directly from Hebrew and Greek texts, it was a version based on such translations, and intended to satisfy the need for such a Bible. It was not, therefore, derived from the Vulgate.

* See also the older account, covering much the same ground, from F.G. Kenyon, "Versions, English", from A Dictionary of the Bible, ed. James Hastings (T & T Clark, 1911), vol. 4, pp. 857-858, or in a more convenient form dealing just with the Great Bible.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.