by Matthew A. C. Newsome ©2003

This letter was written after viewing the web site for the exhibit "Dead Sea Scrolls to the Forbidden Book" opening at the Biblical Arts Center in Dallas, TX.

I am writing regarding the content of your web site, http://deadseaexhibit.com.  Your exhibit looks to be an exciting and fascinating display and I wish I lived close enough that I could visit it myself.

However, since I can’t visit it in person, I must limit myself to what information is available on your web site.  And I must question some of the information that I found.  One of the first things that I noticed was the display of a 15th century Wyclif Bible, which you claim was the first translation of the Bible into English.  I’m afraid that this is misleading and historically inaccurate, for there are many translations of the Scripture that were made into English prior to Wyclif’s time.  Reference Where We Got the Bible, by Henry Graham, chapter 11, “Vernacular Scriptures Before Wyclif.”  Segments of the Scriptures in English can be found from as early as the time of the Venerable Bede in the eighth century.  Portions of the Bible, most notably the Psalms and the Gospels, but also the book of Acts and the Epistles, were translated into English and readily available by the fourteenth century.  Though I know of no extant complete English Bible that dates from that time period, if we are to believe the testimony of people such as Archbishop Cranmer, Sir Thomas More, Foxe the martyrologist, and the authors of the preface to the Reims New Testament (published in 1582), there were complete English versions of the Bible available before Wyclif was born.

Another quite glaring historical error that I discovered was your mention of Richard Hunne, whom you claim was “burned for his belief in the Holy Scriptures in English.”  I’m afraid this account of Hunne’s demise is far from true!  Richard Hunne’s tale is tragic, but not at all like what you make it out to be.  His young son died in 1514, and was buried by a Middlesex priest.  At that time in England it was customary for a priest performing such burial rites to receive the linen burial cloth as compensation.  Hunne refused this standard fee, and was taken to court.  The priest wanted the case heard in Ecclesial court but Hunne sued the priest, and had the case heard in the King’s Court, where Hunne was found guilty and sent to solitary confinement.  The following morning he was found hanging dead in his cell.

Was it suicide or murder?  That was the question at the time.  The answer ultimately given was that the Bishop’s Chancellor, Dr. Horesly, was guilty of Hunne’s murder, but was subsequently pardoned by the King.  The whole affair stunk of ecclesial politics and the Bishops of London, Durham, and Lincoln posthumously accused Hunne of heresy and had his corpse burned.  Was he really a heretic or were the Bishops trying to cover up a mess?  Many at the time accused him of Lollardism, but all we can know for sure is that he was a grieving father who wanted to keep a memento from his son’s funeral.

Regarding his “belief in the Holy Scriptures in English” being the heresy he was accused of one must point out that this belief is hardly heretical.  Thomas More, who wrote much on the case of Richard Hunne, said this of the English Bible.  “Myself have seen and can shew you Bibles fair and old, written in English, which have been known and seen by the Bishop of the dioceses and left in laymen's hands, and women's too, such as he knew for good and Catholic folk, that used it with devotion and soberness” (A Dialog Concerning Heresies).  More goes on to explain that the only time English Bibles are confiscated is when they are incorrect and corrupt translations found in the hands of heretics, such as the Lollards (whom he believed Hunne to be).

Lollardism is a general term used to denote any number of heretical beliefs, the most common of which were a denial of the sacraments (especially the Eucharist and Confession), but also a disdain for clerical celibacy, for prayers for the dead, and the authority of the Church.  Though the name of Lollard was first given to the followers of John Wyclif, who was famous for his English Bible, translating the Bible into English or possessing such a translation was never considered a heresy.  Therefore even in Hunne were truly a Lollard heretic, as he was accused of being, he still would not have been burned (posthumously) for his “belief in the English Bible.”

I only hope than in your exhibit you give a more complete and accurate account of such events.  Simply reading your web site suggests that a vernacular English Bible was somehow forbidden by the authorities and that anyone found in possession of such could be burned.  Such “history” belongs in anti-Catholic propaganda tracts, and not in academic museums that should hold themselves to a higher standard.

I am afraid that even the name of your exhibit (“the Forbidden Book”) is suggestive of such anti-Church bigotry that tells us the Bible was forbidden to the layman until the Reformation – a myth that can be put to rest by some of the very items in your exhibit, such as the Gutenburg Bible, the first book ever to be printed by the Catholic Church.  Indeed, thanks to pious Catholic monks and scholars who slaved away making copies and translations of the various books of the Scriptures from the very earliest days of the Church, Biblical scholars have available to them more copies of Biblical texts from closer to their original dates than any other book from antiquity!  No book has ever been less forbidden throughout history than the Holy Bible.

I wish you success with your exhibit and hope that you do all you can to bring the accurate history of the Sacred Scriptures to your visitors.