Replies

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.