This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Richard Rolle is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mysticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mysticism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MysticismWikipedia:WikiProject MysticismTemplate:WikiProject MysticismMysticism articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
· I would like to add a reference here to the scholarly opinion/s on RIchard Rolle and later English affective piety--and to add a link to the Wikipedia entry on Affective piety.MAE (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
For each text there should be a reference to a good edition of the original rather than to a translation. It is a good idea to also provide links to translations, but these should not take the place of proper editions. How can the 'English commentary with translation of the Latin Psalms into English' be a 'translation of the Bible into English'? The Psalms are part of the Old Testament, they are not the whole Bible; and how can this be 'the only authorised translation'? Since 'it did not need diocesan permission for its use', how was it authorized? Wasn't Coverdale's Great Bible of 1539 the first authorized text? — Henrik Thiil Nielsen (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC).Reply
That definitely needs rephrasing, and the "works" section needs a comprehensive reboot too. Probably best to have three sections: editions of Latin works, editions of Middle English works, and translations of the past century or so. 'The only authorized translation' of one book of the Bible, I suppose is what's meant although it could be expressed more clearly. Altenmaeren (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
.jpg){kind=small}