There have been a variety of interpretations of Periculosa in particular over the years.
- That it made the possession and use of vernacular scripture illegal. This is not found in the text. Nevertheless, it seems to have been the received wisdom by the 1500s.[2] Protestant polemicist John Foxe was perplexed that there seemed to be no actual legal basis for prosecutions he was convinced had occurred.
- That reading or ownership did not require permission, just translation.
- That it required a layman who wanted to read newish vernacular scripture or translations to obtain permission from his bishop. This is the view held by leading Tudor lawyer Thomas More, who wrote of having seen older non-Wycliffean vernacular translations in the libraries of great houses, as well as the view of the author of the preface to the 1582 Rheims New Testament.
- That publication required a bishop's permission, but perhaps not the act of translation itself. This is a view associated with William Tyndale by historian David Daniell.[1]: 328
Another controversy is over the size of a text that would be deemed a new translation: some writers even claim that any translation of a single sentence would be banned; however, this would make sermons untenable. Historian Sarah James notes that Bishop Reginald Pecock, a man with enemies, continued to write vernacular works with his own renditions of scriptural verses yet faced no censure.[3]: 163