(October 20, 2014 at 3:38 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:(October 12, 2014 at 9:54 am)Chas Wrote: Is this something symbolic or metaphorical?
Because you can't possibly mean this literally.
When do you think the Bible was written?
The English assembled everything into the Codex Amiatinus and gave it to the Pope. The Bible as such didn't exist before that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Amiatinus
That depends on what you consider to be "the bible", huh?
Indeed, the version you speak of is "the earliest surviving manuscript of the nearly complete Bible in the Latin Vulgate version,[1] and is considered to be the most accurate copy of St. Jerome's text."
And this Vulgate "is a late fourth-century Latin translation of the Bible that became, during the 16th century, the Catholic Church's officially promulgated Latin version of the Bible."
Now... notice that the Codex Amiatinus dates back from the 8th century, well after the 4th century, when this Vulgate is thought to have originated as "the work of St. Jerome, who, in 382, was commissioned by Pope Damasus I to revise the Vetus Latina ("Old Latin") collection of Biblical texts in Latin then in use by the Church."
So we have a pre-existing and pre-established text, in an old form of Latin, which was updated in the 4th century to the so-called "Latin Vulgate" (common Latin). And the oldest surviving copy of this new version is the one "produced in the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Northumbria as a gift for the Pope".
This does not mean that the English wrote the original... far from it, it seems.
So why do you insist that the English wrote the bible in its current format?