Linguistic ideology and the pre-modern English Bible
A look at arguments for and against an English translation through the lens of historical sociolinguistics
Can the prestige of a language be an argument for the translation of a sacred text? Conversely, if a language is
perceived as substandard, is that an argument against translation? In the history of the English Bible, scholars and theologians
have argued both for and against a vernacular scripture, but the debate has not always been based on religious beliefs. Following
the Norman Invasion of 1066, the translation debate shifted from the religious to the linguistic. In other words, the argument
against translation became based on the perception that English was “too rude” to properly convey the complex nature of Holy
Scripture. Reformers like William Tyndale protested this view, arguing that the linguistic argument against a Bible in the
vernacular really masked an almost maniacal desire on the part of the ecclesiastical establishment to control the message. This
paper takes a closer look at historical arguments for and against an English Bible from the Anglo-Saxon period through the Tyndale
Bible.
Article outline
- The notion of linguistic ideology, and the process of language change
- The Old English Period (449 CE – 1100 CE)
- The Middle English Period (1100 CE – 1500 CE)
- The Early Modern English Period (1500 CE – 1800 CE)
- Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
References