Replies

“Maybe I should read more on the subject, but up until both of you corrected me I had heard only this version:”

Oh, here we go with all the usual myths, half-truths and cliches:

“To a 15th century farmer, the Bible was just a big book full of unreadable words and made-up rules.”

Completely false. The Bible existed in vernacular translations - partial or full - just about everywhere in Europe (including in England). Also, “To a 15th century farmer, the Bible” was the Word of God. Even to those who could not read it in any language it was never “just a big book full of ... made-up rules.” They knew EXACTLY what the Bible was, they knew Bible stories - even when they were illiterate farmers from the 15th century.

“This was because priests in those times insisted on the Bible being in Latin.”

That’s a mischaracterization to say the least. Priests were, of course, the leading Bible translators of the day. Some of these priests were heretics, some were not. If a priest, somewhere, insisted on the Bible being in Latin it was for the same reason as to why my Latin Mass saying pastor would expect the Bible to be in Latin - that’s all they knew and it was considered very reliable and it was used in all other known theological works produced over the previous millennium or so.

“They said the Bible was a holy book, and shouldn’t be allowed to be read by any old sinful peasant.”

And how many peasants could read? Seriously, I have no doubt that some clergymen did think it would be a disaster if EVERYONE started interpreting the Bible any new way they felt like. Wasn’t that proved to be a realized fear by the Protestant Revolution? I have heard Protestants, including Protestant ministers, openly express concern over just anyone interpreting the Bible precisely because they know it will lead to more confusion. Are they wrong on that? No, they’re right. It does lead to more confusion.

“Really, they wanted it to be in a language only they could understand so they could make up a bunch of silly laws to suit themselves,”

Well, there are two problems there: 1) not only priests knew Latin. Anyone who was decently educated knew some Latin. That was true in the Western world until less than a century ago. When a Russian ship visited California in the 19th century the Russian doctor used Latin to converse with a Franciscan friar. I used it to talk to a Dominican friar in Italy in 2001. I didn’t speak Italian. He didn’t speak Latin, but had studied it in seminary when he was young so he understood it. I spoke in Latin. He answered in Italian. It worked. He gave me and some friends a private tour of a Church in Florence because he enjoyed our attempts to converse with one another. Latin even makes it into cowboy movies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gSj1G4Vf0w

2) the “so they could make up a bunch of silly laws to suit themselves” idea is utter rot. How - if people are MAKING IT UP - are they going to get other people who read Latin to agree with it? Religious orders often had running doctrinal disputes with other orders for CENTURIES. Monks - who knew Latin - often disagreed with one another, wrote books opposing other monks’ ideas. Seriously, what you’re suggesting is a logical impossibility. People debated theology all the time and the idea that someone could just “could make up a bunch of silly laws to suit themselves” by having the Bible in Latin just can’t work.

“then get away with it by saying “It says so in the Bible.””

Except that never happened - certainly not the way you’re suggesting. If you look around here, you’ll run into Protestants who can only read the Bible in English and will claim bizarre, stupid, non-biblical doctrines all the time. When you confront them, they’ll say “It’s in the Bible” and then post verses that in no way say what they claim. So, clearly, “keeping” the Bible in Latin is not a pre-requisite to making “up a bunch of silly laws”. Protestants do it and they do it with vernacular Bibles.

“They thought no-one would ever know different, and no-one would ever try and reveal the truth.”

Again, that’s a logical impossibility. When I was a grad student (I have a PhD in medieval history) I remember numerous talks with the medieval history PhD student in the office next door to mine. We had the same professors. He used to regale me with wonderfully funny stories of Franciscans battling Dominicans, bishops, popes, Church councils, etc. over doctrinal issues and practices. The idea that “no-one would ever know different” is a logical impossibility.

“And no-one did, until Tyndale came along......”

Yeah, again, that’s a logical impossibility. Even within the paranoid delusions which usually accompany these “no Bibles in the vernacular” myths that doesn’t make sense. Not only were many biblical books in the vernacular, and there were non-priests who could read Latin as well as the vernacular, but there were even other translators like John Wycliffe, who died in about 1386 - a full century before Tyndale was born.