Only if an accurate translation is heresy. As for the notes, here is a reproduction of his 1526 New Testament...look at all those notes:
Posted on 11/27/2010 7:12:53 AM PST by re_tail20
You wrote:
“Your post is too long. I can’t be bothered to read it. Can you summarize in two sentences? Thanks.”
Nope. It’s not much longer than yours. If that is too much trouble for you to read, then your own posts whould be too much trouble for you to write. Your post was 224 words long. My reply - excluding your words - was 340 words long. If you’re overwhelmed by 116 words, that might explain why you know so little. By the way this post is 103 words long. If you’re winded you can always do something less taxing than reading. You can always pick your navel. Maybe you’ll find a source there you can use as evidence for your bogus claims.
From the time frame prior to Luther, wiki has:
“There were Bible translations present in manuscript form at a considerable scale already in the thirteenth and the fourteenth century (e.g. the New Testament in the Augsburger Bible of 1350 and the Old Testament in the Wenzel Bible of 1389). There is ample evidence for the general use of the entire vernacular German Bible in the fifteenth century.[2] In 1466, before Martin Luther was even born, the Mentel Bible, a High-German vernacular Bible was printed at Strassburg. This edition was based on a no-longer-existing fourteenth-century manuscript translation of the Vulgate from the area of Nurenberg. Until 1518, it was reprinted at least 13 times. In 1478-1479, two Low German Bible editions were published in Cologne, one in the Niederrheinish or West-Westfalian dialect and another in the dialect of Lower Saxony or the East-Westfalian dialect. In 1494, another Low-German Bible was published in Lübeck, and in 1522, the last pre-Lutheran Bible, the Low-German Halberstaedter Bible was published.”
So lets look at these.
Augsburger Bible & Wenzel Bible. I can’t find any discussion of numbers, but the pictures I saw on the Internet included color pictures (http://cranfordville.com/IBC%20Cologne/BibleSession17.pdf), so it is pretty safe to say they were not published in huge numbers for common distribution.
Mentel Bible. High German. Over a dozen editions printed before 1522. High German suggests it wasn’t exactly meant for the common folk. It is described as a literal translation from the Vulgate, and this extract seems to find it deficient (http://books.google.com/books?id=jTWlhe7wlN8C&pg=PA434&lpg=PA434&dq=mentel+bible&source=bl&ots=dRrrjFUlhJ&sig=IIB6hMbcs8WJMLj0pK7y4V068SE&hl=en&ei=J-XyTMaRNc-F4QbO7v2NAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&sqi=2&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=mentel%20bible&f=false).
Still, that seems to have been the best option for a German wanting to read the scripture prior to Luther.
Were Bibles totally unavailable in German prior to Luther? No. Did Luther’s translation, and his zeal to see it in the hands of commoners, do what the Catholic Church had failed to sponsor for a thousand years? Yes, undeniably.
I will save my breath you mind is closed.
You wrote:
“Mentel Bible. High German. Over a dozen editions printed before 1522. High German suggests it wasn’t exactly meant for the common folk.”
FALSE!!! High German was a REGIONAL DIALECT. It was spoken by EVERYONE within certain regions of Germany. Look at this map and you’ll know better (again): http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.language-capitals.com/images/karte.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.language-capitals.com/german_varieties_high_german.php&usg=__NLA0gHtnH7m0frPgn3Bu9wguES0=&h=325&w=355&sz=36&hl=en&start=11&zoom=1&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=aPSyUHhGjSsuyM:&tbnh=111&tbnw=121&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmap%2Bhigh%2Bgerman%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26tbs%3Disch:1
“ It is described as a literal translation from the Vulgate, and this extract seems to find it deficient”
The description is irrelevant. The people of Germany clearly found it worthwhile or it would not have gone to a dozen printings.
“Augsburger Bible & Wenzel Bible. I can’t find any discussion of numbers, but the pictures I saw on the Internet included color pictures (http://cranfordville.com/IBC%20Cologne/BibleSession17.pdf), so it is pretty safe to say they were not published in huge numbers for common distribution.”
What? So were stained glass windows only for clergy? After all they had color pictures. That comment of yours has to be one of the most bizarre I have ever heard from an anti-Catholic and that is saying something. Ever hear of Pauper Bibles? They were almost nothing but pictures. They were to instruct the illiterate. Also, if you knew what you were talking about, and you definitely are not showing any evidence of that, you would know that you’re talking about a mss. Bible. They were hand written, illuminated by hand and would be on the higher end of the cost scale – especially on velum. That did not mean that cheaper Bibles were not produced. We know that they were.
“Still, that seems to have been the best option for a German wanting to read the scripture prior to Luther.”
Maybe, maybe not. There were plenty of options.
“Were Bibles totally unavailable in German prior to Luther? No. Did Luther’s translation, and his zeal to see it in the hands of commoners, do what the Catholic Church had failed to sponsor for a thousand years? Yes, undeniably.”
False. Again, we know that there were plenty of Bibles before Luther. We know people owned them and read them. You keep failing. In post after post, you keep failing.
You cite wikipedia so often that it is strange that you didn’t cite it when it said this:
“There were Bible translations present in manuscript form at a considerable scale already in the thirteenth and the fourteenth century (e.g. the New Testament in the Augsburger Bible of 1350 and the Old Testament in the Wenzel Bible of 1389). There is ample evidence for the general use of the entire vernacular German Bible in the fifteenth century.[2] In 1466, before Martin Luther was even born, the Mentel Bible, a High-German vernacular Bible was printed at Strassburg. This edition was based on a no-longer-existing fourteenth-century manuscript translation of the Vulgate from the area of Nurenberg. Until 1518, it was reprinted at least 13 times. In 1478-1479, two Low German Bible editions were published in Cologne, one in the Niederrheinish or West-Westfalian dialect and another in the dialect of Lower Saxony or the East-Westfalian dialect. In 1494, another Low-German Bible was published in Lübeck, and in 1522, the last pre-Lutheran Bible, the Low-German Halberstaedter Bible was published. In total, there were at least eighteen complete German Bible editions, ninety editions in the vernacular of the Gospels and the readings of the Sundays and Holy Days, and some fourteen German Psalters by the time Luther first published his own New Testament translation.[3]”
This is especially strange since you mentioned the Wenzel Bible and it’s on that page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Bible_translations
“High German was a REGIONAL DIALECT. “
And regional dialects were NOT usable across Germany. Part of the genius of Luther was making a translation so vigorous and straightforward that it help to create the german language.
“The description is irrelevant. The people of Germany clearly found it worthwhile or it would not have gone to a dozen printings.”
The people of Germany were desperate with a hunger the Catholic Church wasn’t interested in feeding. So they took what they could get, which wasn’t much.
“So were stained glass windows only for clergy?”
No, but they didn’t exactly adorn the huts of commoners, did they? Too expensive, and a manuscript painted by hand would be way out of the price range of a commoner. It might help if I point out I use commoner to refer to common people, who didn’t have tons of money. I do NOT use it as contrast to clergy.
“Maybe, maybe not. There were plenty of options.”
Not in the vernacular. Not at a price commoners could hope to buy. But Luther’s was, and thus the huge sales. There were Bibles before Luther, but not in the hands of milkmaids. There COULD have been, but the Catholic Church didn’t care to make it happen.
I was politely dismissing you. You lack the ability to read social cues. You must just be an associate professor somewhere or some other job of no consequence.
You have a grasp of data - you counted the words in my posts...(God, that is so funny, but I’ll suppress my laughter for now)....but you lack the ability to synthesize into knowledge, and your hair-trigger accusations are a never-ending source of amusement. With emphasis on “never-ending”.
Are you presently advising North Korea on diplomacy? If not, you should consider it. You’d fit right in!
You wrote:
“And regional dialects were NOT usable across Germany. Part of the genius of Luther was making a translation so vigorous and straightforward that it help to create the german language.”
False. It helped create Modern High German - but it was still largely a regional court dialect that Luther used. Why it became an important influence on MHG had to do with the political and military might of the new nation states of northern Germany. Fattened by the property they stole from the Church, and strengthened by the immense control they had over their people, they came to dominate Germany. Thus, their German became standard German. If you look at the dialects that became standard French, Spanish, Italian, Polish, or whatever and you see that it boiled down to literary agility combined with political muscle. To this day Germans can’t understand one another when they speak their regional dialects. Have a Bavarian talk to a Cologner and you’ll see. They have to speak the largely artificial language of MHG.
“The people of Germany were desperate with a hunger the Catholic Church wasn’t interested in feeding. So they took what they could get, which wasn’t much.”
No, actually there were plenty of Catholics in Germany who were producing these Catholic Bibles: translators, copiers, printers, etc. The very fact that there were dozens of editions of these Bibles shows the hunger was being fed.
“No, but they didn’t exactly adorn the huts of commoners, did they?”
They didn’t have to. They were in the places where commoners met most often - in their parishes and cathedrals.
“Too expensive, and a manuscript painted by hand would be way out of the price range of a commoner.”
Many were, but we’re not talking about those Bibles. Remember there were as many as 19 printed Bibles. These were not mss. illuminated by hand. They would be more affordable.
By the way, this is what a Boston University website says about a particular Bible:
1519–Giunta Bible
STH Bible Leaves 40-43
Venetiis : Lucas Antonius de Giunta. 105 x 155 mm.
The earliest of many Latin Bibles to bear the name of Lucantonio Giunta, the chief rival of hte Aldi. His press, which existed for nearly a century, became famous not only for its fine music printing, but also for the extensive use of small illustrations in cheaper editions of the Bible, apparently for their “sales appeal” to the humble class of book buyers. http://www.bu.edu/sthlibrary/archives/collections/early-printed-bible-pages/
Huh? They included pictures to get the “humble class” to buy their Bible? Wow, that shoots another idea of yours down in flames doesn’t?
“It might help if I point out I use commoner to refer to common people, who didn’t have tons of money. I do NOT use it as contrast to clergy.”
Okay, and that changes what? Bibles were still available to commoners in the 15th and 16th century BEFORE Luther’s Bible was even begun.
“Not in the vernacular.”
Actually there were - 19 versions in dozens of printings apparently.
“Not at a price commoners could hope to buy.”
Again, false. 19 versions in dozens of printings apparently.
“But Luther’s was, and thus the huge sales.”
False. Luther’s Bible was not originally any cheaper than other Bibles of his day. If you look deeply into books on early printings of the Bible, you’ll discover that a decently printed folio NT cost about what a skilled guild worker would make in two weeks. So, if you were a butcher, baker or candlestick maker all you had to do was save up. This goes for Luther’s original folio NT from 1522 as well. Even cheaper editions came out later - just like it always did for Catholic Bibles - and still does when a book goes from hardback to paperback today.
“There were Bibles before Luther, but not in the hands of milkmaids.”
Actually there were but only in the hands of milkmaids who could read and save up about half a gulden. It would take a milkmaid weeks and weeks to save half a gulden. You make it sound like Luther’s Bible was so cheap that people didn’t have to pony up for it. They did. As the Protestant scholar Maitland showed in his classic book, The Dark Ages, it would take 10 months to make and more than 60 pounds (by 19tyh century standards?) to buy a well made manuscript Bible in the Middle Ages. All that changed with moveable type printing.
As Leicester Buckingham noted in The Bible in the Middle Ages: with remarks on the libraries, schools, and social and religious aspects:
Of the German version of the entire Bible, there appeared at Mentis, one edition in 1462, another in 1466, another without note of place, but supposed to have been there printed in 1467, another in 1470, and another of the version of John Dietemberg, which was issued under the auspices of the Archbishop and Elector of Mentz, in 1534; at Augsburg, two in 1470, one in 1472, another in 1473, two in 1477, one in 1480, another in 1483, another in 1487, another in 1490, another in 1494, another in 1507, another in 1510, another in 1518, and another in 1524 ; at Wittenburg, one in 1470, another in 1483, and another in 1490; at Nuremburg, one in 1477, another in 1480, another in 1483, another in 1488, another in 1490, and another in 1518; and at Strasburg, one in 1485. This summary of German editions comprehends only those of the entire Bible; of editions of separate portions of the Scriptures, we have not the precise details, though they were produced in Germany in the same abundance as elsewhere.
“There COULD have been, but the Catholic Church didn’t care to make it happen.”
Catholics did. And Catholics were the ones responsible just as they are now. It is not the job of the Diocese of Rome to publish German Bibles. It is up to German Catholics to publish German Bibles. And they did so quite admirably.
You wrote:
“I was politely dismissing you. You lack the ability to read social cues.”
No, I just don’t care to follow them if I choose not to.
“You must just be an associate professor somewhere or some other job of no consequence.”
Nope. I actually have a very responsible job. I am not an associate professor. I left academia years ago.
“You have a grasp of data - you counted the words in my posts...(God, that is so funny, but I’ll suppress my laughter for now)....”
I did not count them. I let my computer do that for me automatically. I simply thought it made a good comment about your apparent intellectual laziness.
“but you lack the ability to synthesize into knowledge, and your hair-trigger accusations are a never-ending source of amusement. With emphasis on “never-ending”.”
No, actually I synthesize information much better than you do. Notice, I made no mistakes whatsoever on the facts, not even once. Yet you did so. Someone who can avoid error repeatedly is clearly synthesizing information better than someone who cannot get even the most basic information correct. You seem to completely lack any historical perspective about the topics at hand. You seem to have no knowledge whatsoever about the historical context of any of this. You’re essentially like an illiterate person who is told to relate the contents of a book you can’t read. The results are pathetic.
“Are you presently advising North Korea on diplomacy?”
No, why are you leaving that job?
“If not, you should consider it. You’d fit right in!”
No, again, I like truth while you plainly don’t seem to have any attraction for it at all. Maybe you should keep your job in North Korea. Your unfamiliarity with the real world can only be a plus there.
You can cite 19 editions (and no, they were not in the vernacular by and large, nor good translations at all). I’ll cite 100,000 copies in a translation that has lasted 500 years...
Amazing what a heretic can do, while the Catholic Church could not - because it cared not.
“And Catholics were the ones responsible just as they are now. It is not the job of the Diocese of Rome to publish German Bibles.”
Catholics hardly have a good record of bible distribution. Repression? Yes. Distribution? No. And it speaks volumes that the Catholic Church opposed translation into the vernacular and widespread distribution of God’s Word. It took the heretics Luther and Tyndale to do that...
Remember. 100,000 copies from one printer alone.
*** The Douay and Tyndale largely agreed to begin with. Quite frankly almost all English Bibles do except for dated vocabularly.***
***Since Tyndale was a heretic, his heresy would have been impacted his work no matter what text he used.****
So, to cut to the chase, the REAL argument here is not whether the English translations are accurate or not, but were they done by a Catholic!
class dismissed. You get a “C”.
You wrote:
“You can cite 19 editions (and no, they were not in the vernacular by and large,”
They were ALL in the vernacular.
” nor good translations at all).”
How good is your German? I freely admit some were better than others. But if they were not good in the first place then they probably wouldn’t have been printed or sold and then reprinted a dozen times in some cases. Think.
“I’ll cite 100,000 copies in a translation that has lasted 500 years...”
It’s been revised - many times. The KJV was revised as well.
“Amazing what a heretic can do, while the Catholic Church could not - because it cared not.”
Catholics did it. It is not the responsibility of the Diocese of Rome to publish German Bibles. The Germans did it. They still do. And heretics have succeeded before and will continue to do so on this earth. Satan is the prince of this world. Heretics will always have some success. Satan lauded Luther’s efforts according to Luther’s own words.
“Catholics hardly have a good record of bible distribution.”
Actually they have an excellent one. 19 editions - and those are just the printed ones - before Luther.
“Repression? Yes. Distribution? No.”
Again, 19 editions in Germany alone from 1450s to the 1520. Reprinted numerous times.
“And it speaks volumes that the Catholic Church opposed translation into the vernacular and widespread distribution of God’s Word.”
It didn’t. Yet another baseless assertion from you with no evidence whatsoever. Typical.
“It took the heretics Luther and Tyndale to do that...”
Nope. It was already done. 19 editions in Germany alone before Luther.
“Remember. 100,000 copies from one printer alone.”
Yep. A whopping average of 2,500 copies a year. The grand total from all printers is very impressive. State supported heresy can do that. The real issue should be truth. Was Luther really promoting truth when he altered Romans? No, not really.
You wrote:
“So, to cut to the chase, the REAL argument here is not whether the English translations are accurate or not, but were they done by a Catholic!”
No. The real issue is that Tyndale’s Bible was heretical. Whether you want to say it was heretical for only its text or its notes or both doesn’t change the heresy of the product.
You wrote:
“class dismissed. You get a “C”.”
You’re clearly not the teacher here. When you learn to make an argument and actually know some sources let me know. Perhaps when you graduate the high school. Public school, right?
According to a NY Times article from 1906, of the editions put out prior to Luthers’ all but one were folios...”they were not publications for the people”.
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F30B10FD3B5A12738DDDA90A94D9405B868CF1D3
As for the one published in mass, “This followed the Latin model so doggedly that its German text can only be grasped by someone who knows Latin grammar as well.”
The figure of 100,000 Bibles in 40 years comes from one printer alone, and was for complete Bibles. The impact was huge, and everyone without a PhD seems to have recognized that.
Only if an accurate translation is heresy. As for the notes, here is a reproduction of his 1526 New Testament...look at all those notes:
You do realize that there is a degree of mutual exclusivity. The Catholic Church gathered/Organized/ordered the Canon and is exclusivley responsible for it's protection for almost 2000 years. So yeah.....
So rather than give us REAL arguments against the KJV other than HERESY! HERESY!HERESY! all your arguments are basicly nitpicking.
• 13 “And whereas they urge for their second defence of their vilifying and abusing of the English Bibles, or some pieces thereof, which they meet with, for that heretics, forsooth, were the authors of the translations, (heretics they call us by the same right that they call themselves Catholics, both being wrong) we marvel what divinity taught them so”.
Vladimer said the English translations were good, then attacks them.
The KJV has no notes, so you attack the alternate readings in the margin.
You attack the “changes” demanded by King James I. Anyone with an ounce of brains already knows that those changes are of no importance except to make the King feel good.
Even the Catholic bibles have had changes in them. Here is what the KJV Translators had to say about this...
“18 Nay, we will yet come nearer the quick: doth not their Paris edition differ from the Lovaine, and Hentenius’s from them both, and yet all of them allowed by authority?”
20 “Nay, further, did not the same Sixtus ordain by an inviolable decree, and that with the counsel and consent of his cardinals, that the Latin edition of the Old and New Testament, which the Council of Trent would have to be authentic, is the same without controversy which he then set forth, being diligently corrected and printed in the printing-house of Vatican? Thus Sixtus in his preface before his Bible.
• 21 And yet Clement the Eighth his immediate successor, publisheth another edition of the Bible, containing in it infinite differences from that of Sixtus, (and many of them weighty and material) and yet this must be authentic by all means”.
You attack the Translators and someone posted in another thread that the translators were unknown.
I posted a complete list of translators. Not a hack among them.
So you say there are books missing. I checked my publisher and they have a KJV with the Apocrypha and you can also order it in a separate printing..
Everyone should read the Apocrypha at least once so you will see why they are as irrelivant as THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS, which is in the Alexandrian MMS..
The translators of the KJV in their preface (missing in most modern printings except the larger Cambridge editions)state precisely what their goal was in the KJV translation, “to make a good one better”.
Are there better translations today? YES! But they don’t have the “music” that public reading of the KJV has.
The KJV! Four hundred years old and still going strong!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.