You wrote:
“No, of course Rome did not react - that would be an acknowledgment of fault, and you know better than I that will never happen - no matter how wrong they happen to be.”
What fault? Rome never concerned itself with vernacular translations since the fourth century when it developed its own. Different peoples and hierarchies are responsible for their own translations. That’s the way it always was, and that’s the way it still is. What fault? You make these vague accusations. How about actually saying something concrete? Probably too much to ask.
“It was purely coincidental that they provided/approved their own English translation only after the Protestant Reformation.”
They who? There had always been English translations of scriptures. I had to read books of the Bible in Old English (aka Anglo-Saxon) in grad school. The Douay-Rheims was made by the Jesuits of Douay College. Rome had nothing to do with it. It is up to the people of a nation and its own hierarchy to publish translations. It is not up to the Bishop of Rome. The Jesuits wanted to publish a translation. They did so. It wasn’t the last one they were responsible for either. They also helped the Russians publish translations of the Bible!
“That’s fine. It matters little which English Translation you use - better to read one than none. The KJV was and is an incredibly successful endeavor in spreading The Word.”
I agree. It is interesting that that is so because of an enforcement of the law in England and an abandonment of English law in America. In England, the KJV was forced on parishes by law. They had no choice. In America, we ignored the English copyright and printed the KJV freely. Since no one got their deserved copyright money, the KJV was cheap and could be given away in the millions.
“Some folks won’t acknowledge anything Protestants do, even when it defined their present Reformed non-Protestant faith.”
I acknowledge what’s true. It is true that the KJV was a decent translation (with some problems), was better produced after the 1769 revision, was spread everywhere by force of law in England and by ignoring English copyright laws in the USA. Strange, but true.
“I acknowledge what’s true.”
lol....you only acknowledge what’s convenient, rarely the whole truth. In a way, that’s the lesson of Rome.
*** Rome never concerned itself with vernacular translations since the fourth century when it developed its own. Different peoples and hierarchies are responsible for their own translations.***
From the Translators to the reader 1611 KJV
THE UNWILLINGNESS OF OUR CHIEF ADVERSARIES, THAT THE SCRIPTURES
SHOULD BE DIVULGED IN THE MOTHER TONGUE, ETC.
Now the Church of Rome would seem at the length to bear a motherly affection towards her children, and to allow them the Scriptures in their mother tongue: but indeed it is a gift, not deserving to be called a gift, an unprofitable gift: [Sophecles] they must first get a licence in writing before they may use them, and to get that, they must approve themselves to their Confessor, that is, to be such as are, if not frozen in the dregs, yet soured with the leaven of their superstition.
Howbeit, it seemed too much to Clement the Eighth that there should be any Licence granted to have them in the vulgar tongue, and therefore he overruleth and frustrateth the grant of Pius the Fourth. [See the observation (set forth by Clemen. his authority) upon the 4. rule of Pius the 4. his making in the index, lib. prohib. pag. 15. ver. 5.]
So much are they afraid of the light of the Scripture, (Lucifugae Scripturarum, as Tertulian speaketh) that they will not trust the people with it, no not as it is set forth by their own sworn men, no not with the Licence of their own Bishops and Inquisitors. Yea, so unwilling they are to communicate the Scriptures to the people’s understanding in any sort, that they are not ashamed to confess, that we forced them to translate it into English against their wills....
But the difference that appeareth between our Translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that we are specially charged with; let us see therefore whether they themselves be without fault this way, (if it be to be counted a fault, to correct) and whether they be fit men to throw stones at us:...
But what will they say to this, that Pope Leo the Tenth allowed Erasmus’ Translation of the New Testament, so much different from the vulgar, by his Apostolic Letter and Bull; that the same Leo exhorted Pagnine to translate the whole Bible, and bare whatsoever charges was necessary for the work? [Sixtus Senens.] Surely, as the Apostle reasoneth to the Hebrews, that if the former Law and Testament had been sufficient, there had been no need of the latter: ...
Nay, doth not Sixtus Quintus confess, that certain Catholics (he meaneth certain of his own side) were in such an humor of translating the Scriptures into Latin, that Satan taking occasion by them, though they thought of no such matter, did strive what he could, out of so uncertain and manifold a variety of Translations, so to mingle all things, that nothing might seem to be left certain and firm in them, etc.? [Sixtus 5. praefat. fixa Bibliis.]
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. And yet Clement the Eighth his immediate successor, published 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.