Daniell, David. The Bible in English: Its History and Influence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003.
http://www.amazon.com/
Prof. David Daniell is Emeritus Professor of English at the University College London. He is an honorary Fellow of Hertford and St. Catherine’s colleges, Oxford. He has authored articles and books on Shakespeare and the Arden edition of Julius Caesar. He edited the Penguin edition of William Tyndale’s Obedience of a Christian Man. Yale University Press published his editions of Tyndale’s New Testament and Tyndale’s Old Testament. He is also the author of that magnum opus: William Tyndale: A Biography. The latter is a must-read.
The Anglo-Saxon Bible, AD 850-1066, pages 44-55
There was much interest in the Latin Bible and “there was a good deal of translating” (44). But, they were “part-Bibles.” That is, the Gospels as a book of glosses. The Psalter and other books of the Bible were “glossed” into Old English (OE), or, Anglo-Saxon (AS), OE and AS being used interchangeably. “Glossing” was the Latin text with a running OE translation. More later on that.
William Tyndale recollected in 1528:
“…except my memory fail me and that I have forgotten what I read when I was a child thou shalt find in the English chronicle how that king Adelstone [Athelstan, AD 924—939] caused the holy scripture to be translated into the tongue [AS or OE] that was then in England and how the prelates exhorted him thereto…” (emphasis added, 47)
Three things about the quote. (1) the plurality of prelates seeking AS or OE translations. (2) Tyndale may have received this from the librarian, William, Malmesbury Abbey, citing an 1120 source, 12 miles from Tyndale’s homestead. (3) The king “caused the holy scripture” to be translated, a claim to factuality.
Athelstan (reigned AD 925—939). Athelstan followed in the footsteps of his grandfather in his enthusiasm for learning and for the education of the nation.
Wikipedia offers this:
"The reign of Æthelstan has been overlooked and overshadowed by the achievements of his grandfather, Alfred the Great, but he is now considered one of the greatest kings of the West Saxon dynasty.[134] Modern historians endorse the view of twelfth century chronicler William of Malmesbury that "no one more just or more learned ever governed the kingdom".[135] According to Frank Stenton: "In character and cast of mind he is the one West Saxon king who will bear comparison with Alfred."[136] Simon Keynes agreed, writing that he "has long been regarded, with good reason, as a towering figure in the landscape of the tenth century ... he has also been hailed as the first king of England, as a statesman of international standing, and as the one Anglo-Saxon ruler who will bear comparison with king Alfred the Great."[137] David Dumville described Æthelstan as "the father of mediaeval and modern England",[138] while Michael Wood regards Offa, Alfred, and Æthelstan as the three greatest Anglo-Saxon kings, and Æthelstan as "one of the more important lay intellectuals in Anglo-Saxon history".[139]
Again, from Wikipedia:
"Æthelstan's reputation was at its height when he died. According to Sarah Foot, "He found acclaim in his own day not only as a successful military leader and effective monarch but also as a man of devotion, committed to the promotion of religion and the patronage of learning." Later in the century, Æthelweard praised him as a very mighty king worthy of honour, and Æthelred the Unready, who named his eight sons after his predecessors, put Æthelstan first as the name of his eldest son.[144] Memory of Æthelstan then declined until it was revived by William of Malmesbury, who took a special interest in him as the one king who had chosen to be buried in his own house. William's account kept his memory alive, and he was praised by other medieval chroniclers. In the early sixteenth century William Tyndale justified his English translation of the Bible by stating that he had read that King Æthelstan had caused the Holy Scriptures to be translated into Anglo-Saxon[145]" (emphasis added).
A question arises: was King Athelstan England’s Charlemagne? Another question: his role in laying the groundwork for Oxford and Cambridge? Or, another question, what about readings in the churches?
Alfred (AD 871—899) predecessor to Athelstan (AD 924—939). He inherited the throne at a difficult time. Viking raids were on-going for territory and plunder. Alfred understood himself and England in OT terms. He saw the decline of learning and the decline of the ecclesiastical culture.
But Athelston, the first king of England (AD 924—939), ordered translation of books in English, volumes “most needful for men to know.” Examples: Gregory the Great’s Pastoral Care, Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy, Augustine’s Soliloquies, Orosius’ History Against Pagans, and also the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Athelstan asked the immemorial and insightful question: if the Scriptures were translated from Hebrew to Greek and Greek to Latin, why are they not translated into English (AS or OE)? That spirit would animate Wycliff and Tyndale and all Catholic (=not Roman) Christians since. Alfred learned and personally kept the canonical hours. He had an anthology of Biblical extracts, passages of patristic exegesis, various literary texts and Psalm 1-50. He also began writing his legal codes in English, founding them on Exodus 20 and the 10 commandments. His laws were to be coordinated with Moses (this will delight Presbyterian theonomists). Athelstan saw God at work with nations, thinking like OT prophets. Kingship and OT themes would became DNA-thematic in English history.
Anglo-Saxon glosses. Glosses were “teaching methods in schools attached to monasteries” (46). The teacher would read the Latin and expound on it. The student would copy the Latin and then “gloss” it into English. “Glossing = translating = interpreting and understanding.” Queen Elizabeth learned her several languages this way. From the foreign language, then into English, and, then for her, back from the English to the foreign language. The "Lindisfarne Gospels," produced centuries earlier, was glossed in the mid-10th century by Aldred. The “Rushworth Gospels” were “glossed” by Farman into Mercian in the 10th century. The Gospels were “glossed” into the West Saxon dialect in the 10th century. The Psalms, being liturgically important, were glossed in the 10th century and there are 14 manuscripts surviving from this period. Genesis—Judges was “glossed” by Aelfic, as were Proverbs and Ecclesiasticus. The standing question: was it for weak and illiterate monks, learning their language and grammar, or for the public? Learning the Bible was clearly the issue.
Aelifric and biblical translation, 48-50. He was an abbot of Cerne, Dorset, and later of Eynsham near Oxford, 5 miles to the northeast. He was the foremost Anglo-Saxon scholar of the late 10th-early 11th century. He wrote homilies, saints’ lives, a Latin grammar, pastoral letters and biblical translations. Why biblical translations if not for teaching? He wanted an “authoritative body of doctrine” available to those who could not read Latin. He wrote the Temporale and Sanctorale which was used and copied into the 13th century. His wrote his homilies in AD 990 for his own personal use. He issued these to his clergy for their use: for monks, secular clergy, and laity in monastic churches, collegiate churches, cathedrals and parish churches. Parish churches were still developing and forming. He aimed at the Latin-literate and the ignorant; his writings exhibited a “wide, balanced Christology” and he wrote in English (AS-OE). He translated the daily lections in the “vernacular” also. Most odd. Aelfric translated the Heptateuch. He worried about the ability to distinguish between the Old and New Testament “dispensations.”
Wulftan, 50. Besides Aelfric, the other great Anglo-Saxon preacher was Wulfstan. He was the archbishop of York. He also did legislative work under King Ethelred (AD 978—1016) and King Canute (AD 1016—1035). Wulfstan, cognizant of the varied Viking and Danish raids, focused on “last things,” the fundamentals of the faith, the role of the church, and morality.
http://www.amazon.com/
Prof. David Daniell is Emeritus Professor of English at the University College London. He is an honorary Fellow of Hertford and St. Catherine’s colleges, Oxford. He has authored articles and books on Shakespeare and the Arden edition of Julius Caesar. He edited the Penguin edition of William Tyndale’s Obedience of a Christian Man. Yale University Press published his editions of Tyndale’s New Testament and Tyndale’s Old Testament. He is also the author of that magnum opus: William Tyndale: A Biography. The latter is a must-read.
The Anglo-Saxon Bible, AD 850-1066, pages 44-55
There was much interest in the Latin Bible and “there was a good deal of translating” (44). But, they were “part-Bibles.” That is, the Gospels as a book of glosses. The Psalter and other books of the Bible were “glossed” into Old English (OE), or, Anglo-Saxon (AS), OE and AS being used interchangeably. “Glossing” was the Latin text with a running OE translation. More later on that.
William Tyndale recollected in 1528:
“…except my memory fail me and that I have forgotten what I read when I was a child thou shalt find in the English chronicle how that king Adelstone [Athelstan, AD 924—939] caused the holy scripture to be translated into the tongue [AS or OE] that was then in England and how the prelates exhorted him thereto…” (emphasis added, 47)
Three things about the quote. (1) the plurality of prelates seeking AS or OE translations. (2) Tyndale may have received this from the librarian, William, Malmesbury Abbey, citing an 1120 source, 12 miles from Tyndale’s homestead. (3) The king “caused the holy scripture” to be translated, a claim to factuality.
Athelstan (reigned AD 925—939). Athelstan followed in the footsteps of his grandfather in his enthusiasm for learning and for the education of the nation.
Wikipedia offers this:
"The reign of Æthelstan has been overlooked and overshadowed by the achievements of his grandfather, Alfred the Great, but he is now considered one of the greatest kings of the West Saxon dynasty.[134] Modern historians endorse the view of twelfth century chronicler William of Malmesbury that "no one more just or more learned ever governed the kingdom".[135] According to Frank Stenton: "In character and cast of mind he is the one West Saxon king who will bear comparison with Alfred."[136] Simon Keynes agreed, writing that he "has long been regarded, with good reason, as a towering figure in the landscape of the tenth century ... he has also been hailed as the first king of England, as a statesman of international standing, and as the one Anglo-Saxon ruler who will bear comparison with king Alfred the Great."[137] David Dumville described Æthelstan as "the father of mediaeval and modern England",[138] while Michael Wood regards Offa, Alfred, and Æthelstan as the three greatest Anglo-Saxon kings, and Æthelstan as "one of the more important lay intellectuals in Anglo-Saxon history".[139]
Again, from Wikipedia:
"Æthelstan's reputation was at its height when he died. According to Sarah Foot, "He found acclaim in his own day not only as a successful military leader and effective monarch but also as a man of devotion, committed to the promotion of religion and the patronage of learning." Later in the century, Æthelweard praised him as a very mighty king worthy of honour, and Æthelred the Unready, who named his eight sons after his predecessors, put Æthelstan first as the name of his eldest son.[144] Memory of Æthelstan then declined until it was revived by William of Malmesbury, who took a special interest in him as the one king who had chosen to be buried in his own house. William's account kept his memory alive, and he was praised by other medieval chroniclers. In the early sixteenth century William Tyndale justified his English translation of the Bible by stating that he had read that King Æthelstan had caused the Holy Scriptures to be translated into Anglo-Saxon[145]" (emphasis added).
A question arises: was King Athelstan England’s Charlemagne? Another question: his role in laying the groundwork for Oxford and Cambridge? Or, another question, what about readings in the churches?
Alfred (AD 871—899) predecessor to Athelstan (AD 924—939). He inherited the throne at a difficult time. Viking raids were on-going for territory and plunder. Alfred understood himself and England in OT terms. He saw the decline of learning and the decline of the ecclesiastical culture.
But Athelston, the first king of England (AD 924—939), ordered translation of books in English, volumes “most needful for men to know.” Examples: Gregory the Great’s Pastoral Care, Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy, Augustine’s Soliloquies, Orosius’ History Against Pagans, and also the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Athelstan asked the immemorial and insightful question: if the Scriptures were translated from Hebrew to Greek and Greek to Latin, why are they not translated into English (AS or OE)? That spirit would animate Wycliff and Tyndale and all Catholic (=not Roman) Christians since. Alfred learned and personally kept the canonical hours. He had an anthology of Biblical extracts, passages of patristic exegesis, various literary texts and Psalm 1-50. He also began writing his legal codes in English, founding them on Exodus 20 and the 10 commandments. His laws were to be coordinated with Moses (this will delight Presbyterian theonomists). Athelstan saw God at work with nations, thinking like OT prophets. Kingship and OT themes would became DNA-thematic in English history.
Anglo-Saxon glosses. Glosses were “teaching methods in schools attached to monasteries” (46). The teacher would read the Latin and expound on it. The student would copy the Latin and then “gloss” it into English. “Glossing = translating = interpreting and understanding.” Queen Elizabeth learned her several languages this way. From the foreign language, then into English, and, then for her, back from the English to the foreign language. The "Lindisfarne Gospels," produced centuries earlier, was glossed in the mid-10th century by Aldred. The “Rushworth Gospels” were “glossed” by Farman into Mercian in the 10th century. The Gospels were “glossed” into the West Saxon dialect in the 10th century. The Psalms, being liturgically important, were glossed in the 10th century and there are 14 manuscripts surviving from this period. Genesis—Judges was “glossed” by Aelfic, as were Proverbs and Ecclesiasticus. The standing question: was it for weak and illiterate monks, learning their language and grammar, or for the public? Learning the Bible was clearly the issue.
Aelifric and biblical translation, 48-50. He was an abbot of Cerne, Dorset, and later of Eynsham near Oxford, 5 miles to the northeast. He was the foremost Anglo-Saxon scholar of the late 10th-early 11th century. He wrote homilies, saints’ lives, a Latin grammar, pastoral letters and biblical translations. Why biblical translations if not for teaching? He wanted an “authoritative body of doctrine” available to those who could not read Latin. He wrote the Temporale and Sanctorale which was used and copied into the 13th century. His wrote his homilies in AD 990 for his own personal use. He issued these to his clergy for their use: for monks, secular clergy, and laity in monastic churches, collegiate churches, cathedrals and parish churches. Parish churches were still developing and forming. He aimed at the Latin-literate and the ignorant; his writings exhibited a “wide, balanced Christology” and he wrote in English (AS-OE). He translated the daily lections in the “vernacular” also. Most odd. Aelfric translated the Heptateuch. He worried about the ability to distinguish between the Old and New Testament “dispensations.”
Wulftan, 50. Besides Aelfric, the other great Anglo-Saxon preacher was Wulfstan. He was the archbishop of York. He also did legislative work under King Ethelred (AD 978—1016) and King Canute (AD 1016—1035). Wulfstan, cognizant of the varied Viking and Danish raids, focused on “last things,” the fundamentals of the faith, the role of the church, and morality.
No comments:
Post a Comment