Talk:Matthew Bible

message: This article, together with several others on early English Bibles, gave the impression of depending too heavily on the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911, and of misinterpreting its sources. Some errors seemed to have rippled through from one article to another. The articles in question include those on the Jacobus van Meteren, the Great Bible, and Early Modern English Bible translations.
There has been a lot of Bible research since 1911. A more reliable starting point for research in this area is Herbert's extremely detailed and careful Historical Catalogue of Printed Editions of the English Bible 1525–1961, dating from 1968. I have therefore edited the articles in question so that they at least no longer contradict Herbert, although they still contain unsourced material that is not supported by Herbert. Also it was necessary to create an article on the Coverdale Bible of 1535. 
The Jacobus van Meteren article and others referred to the 'Coverdale Old Testament' of 1535 as if it was a separately published book, and (presumably for that reason) incorrectly made the Matthew Bible (1537) the first complete English Bible. If there was a separate 'Coverdale Old Testament', it has escaped Herbert's notice. If other authors know of later sources that update or improve on Herbert, those sources should be named.EEye 13:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: How can a "wife-beater's note" mentioned in this article be "infamous" without a link? I can find nothing relevant in Google on this term as well.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmcc (talk • contribs) 14:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's not actually here, it was actually in Becke's bibles.--Auric  talk 18:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  wife-beater's note 

message: Under the section "Printing", the current version of this article says that "[i]t is not known who printed the 1537 Matthew Bible (Herbert #34)". According to John Strype (1812 [1694]), pp. 81–6, it was printed by Richard Grafton in Hamburg. Is that wrong? If not ... Nortonius (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Printer 

message: Is it "Matthew" or "Mathew"? I saw it somewhere as the latter. Misty MH (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: and everywhere else as "Matthew". Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it "Matthew" or "Mathew"?  

message: The current text has 
Tyndale worked directly from the Hebrew and Greek, occasionally consulting the Vulgate, Erasmus’s Latin version, and Luther's German Bible for the prefaces, marginal notes and the biblical text. followed by four citations all labelled "Scientifically proven".
I am extremely sceptical that the studies are accurately summarized. For example, it ignores Tyndale's clear debt to Wycliffe: whether memorized or commonplace or read. And it ignores how many of the changes were necessitated by syntax and vocabulary changes in Early Modern English. Consequently, these 'scientific' (which I guess means 'statistical') studies seem very prone to mischaracterization. 
For example: we could conjecture a process for the NT where Tyndale took Wycliffean LV, modernized the syntax and vocabulary, looked to see if Luther's German had a good pattern to borrow, or the Vulgate otherwise, then checked for issues in Erasmus' annotations, and if nothing fitted, made up his own expression. None of this requires being able to read well the Greek directly (just as Luther had to rely on Melancthon): how could you "scientifically prove" or disprove this? 
I will remove "occassionally". Better characterization of the claimed sources is needed: I suspect the four sources each make separate claims.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientifically proven?