Ummmm, Since it was made in the 9th Century I suspect the name was attributed to the book long before Luther or even Bohemian Jan Hus were around. The 30 Years War had everybody fighting everybody—with shifting alliances, across religions, and was not primarily a religious war. So no need to make this a Prot v. Cath thing.
The question is why don’t the (very secular) Swedes give back the book to the (very secular) Czechs?
The so-called “very secular Swedes” are still ruled by a Lutheran monarchy, and they have an established church, much like England’s Anglican monarchy, prior to the past few decades. I know how you meant that term, and, in most situations, it’s substantially accurate... but in this one I do wonder how applicable it is.
>> Ummmm, Since it was made in the 9th Century I suspect the name was attributed to the book long before Luther or even Bohemian Jan Hus were around. <<
It’s not the name, though... that’s what’s scandalous about the Reuters article. It’s not even its nickname (which is Codex Gigas.) In fact, it’s quite possible that the legend of how it became known as “the Devil’s bible” is centuries more recent than the actual nickname. The Swedish government’s website makes no reference to that legend: “Secondly, it contains a large, full page portrait of the Devil. (This explains its alternative name.) “
(Even this is inaccurate: the illustration is full-page, but the devil is about 1/4th of the page.)
The purpose of the picture of the devil is to illustrate a guide to how to perform an exorcism.
The Swedish site does later mention the legend. It gives numerous nicknames, as translated from the language by which the nickname is known. As I thoroughly expected, the Satanic references are all Swedish (or in a similar language), while none of the innocuous nicknames are, making very clear that the legend is of Swedish origin (although, reading the actual legend, instead of the MSM’s slander, maybe my presumption of BLACK propaganda was a bit too hasty.)
“It has stirred people’s imaginations and given rise to all manner of legends. A legend concerning a monk of Podlažice walled up alive for his sins had already appeared in medieval times. He attempted to expiate his guilt by writing the world’s biggest book in a single night. Realising the task to be beyond his powers, he invoked the aid of the Devil. The Devil aided him, had his portrait painted in the book and demanded the monk’s soul as payment. The monk was rescued but lost his peace of mind, until finally he turned to the Holy Virgin, beseeching her to save him. She agreed to help but the penitent died on the very point of being absolved from his pact with the Devil.
This legend is a variant of the very popular medieval tale of Theophilus the Penitent, which has the same ingredients as the legend of the Devil’s Bible: a pact with the Devil to achieve the impossible, remorse afterwards, the Virgin’s compassion and the rapid death of the penitent. The same elements recur in the story of Faust, known since the sixteenth century.”
And, incidentally, it was not made in the 9th century, but in the 13th; it includes records through to 1229.
>> Ummmm, Since it was made in the 9th Century I suspect the name was attributed to the book long before Luther or even Bohemian Jan Hus were around. <<
Yes, but who says that the legend was around from its creation?
>> The 30 Years War had everybody fighting everybody—with shifting alliances, across religions, and was not primarily a religious war. So no need to make this a Prot v. Cath thing. <<
The plain absurdity of the allegation makes clear that the name is propagandistic. And while the 30-years war was not strictly religious in nature (as I have argued in situations where Christianity is falsely accused of causing so many wars), Sweden was of a sect (Lutheranism) which was at the time actively teaching that the predominant sect in Bohemia (still Catholicism) was demonic. But I did mean to present this as a natural explanation, rather than the presumption that the book was, indeed, diabolical. Far from diabolic, it was foundational to bohemian civilization, so calling it diabolical, as I stated, seems obviously propagandistic, even if I can only speculate at the motive of the propaganda.