Posted on 01/05/2009 2:54:13 AM PST by GonzoII
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale
Burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_for_the_Advancement_of_True_Religion
Henry VIII’s law against reading the Bible. He wanted to keep the “lower sort” from reading it.
Who did Jesus minster to again? ;)
Conservapedia is a joke. Being anti science isn't conservative it is being a fundamentalist reactionary.
It’s more serious than that. Perhaps you didn’t know that you could not post an article on FR with wiki as a source.
I don't defend wiki’s politics or their practices or even their model; but I do know that both of these events took place in history, and I am fairly confident that wiki has the dates and spelling of names correct, while my memory is unreliable for such things.
A poster asked another poster if he could explain ... “Were those bans on personal reading of the Bible or on specific translations? Please document. Can you?”
I sought to enrich the debate by citing factual evidence relevant to the discussion, not get into a debate about the politics or reliability of wikipedia.
You wrote:
“Both Catholics and Protestants have sought to control access to the Bible and authorized translations and forbidden translations and sought to determine who was allowed to read it or read it aloud to people.”
There was no “authorized” or for that matter “mandated” English translation mandated by the Catholic Church. Only Protestants produced such a thing in English. So EXACTLY what are you talking about. Please don’t make sweeping generalization without specific evidence.
The Douay Rheims Bible was issued a Cum Privilegio as were all Catholic books approved by the local ordinary. It was never mandated by the Vatican or the Catholic Church in council as the necessary or obligatory Catholic Bible for English readers, however. There was also no English hierarchy of bishops to mandate such a thing until at least a full century and a half after its publication and I have no idea if that ever even happened.
“Burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English.”
Incorrect. Many poorly educated Protestants believe that Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating the scriptures, but such is an impossibility.
1) Translating the scriptures was not a crime where and when Tyndale was arrested, tried or executed.
2) All records of the trial of Tyndale show the making of the translation in itself was not an issue.
3) Tyndale had a long record of heresy and had been accused of heresy YEARS before he even began his translation.
4) The myth that Tyndale’s execution had something to do with his translating the Bible is part and parcel of a more extensive myth that says John Wycliffe was executed for translating the Bible. In reality Wycliffe wasn’t executed by anyone for any reason. He died of a stroke while serving a small country parish (after essentially being banished from Oxford) and the actual act of translating the Bible had nothing to do with accusations of heresy against Wycliffe either.
5) Translations most definitely got Tyndale into trouble - but not of the Bible - at least not with the judges who tried him. As Daniells points out, Tyndale’s translation of Luther’s works and Latin translations of his own controversial works got him into trouble!
All that I said above is rather clearly borne out by Protestant David Daniell’s fine biography of Tyndale called William Tyndale: A Biography published by Yale University press in 1994.
It should be pointed out that Tyndale was tried and executed on the CONTINENT of Europe but his translation was into English. No one who tried Tyndale could even read his translation - thus, it simply wasn’t an issue. All the records we have - as Daniell attests - show that Tyndale was tried as a heretic for his stance on faith alone, denial of purgatory, etc. There is no evidence at all that his act of translating the Bible mattered at all in his trial. The way he translated words may have mattered (i.e. incorporating or intimating heresy in the text or notes), but again, who on the continent could even read it?
Don’t feel bad. Your mistake is a common one made by many sincere, but poorly educated Protestants who know little or nothing about the History of Christianity.
If you read William Tyndale by R. Demaus and Richard Lovett (which is online through google books) you’ll see page 422 and 423 where some of the charges against Tyndale are listed. Demaus and Lovett’s book is NOT friendly to the Catholic Church (it was published by a Protestant press or publishing house) and yet they never once say in the chapter on the trial that the actual act of translating the Bible played ANY role in Tyndale’s trial. Again, who among the judges could even read English in the 1520s or 30s?
“Henry VIII’s law against reading the Bible. He wanted to keep the “lower sort” from reading it.”
Passed in 1543 - AFTER Henry VIII became Protestant by the way.
“Who did Jesus minster to again?”
Everyone. And no Protestants would exist for 1500 years afterward either.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0212fea3.asp
Yes, Henry VIII was to show that neither side was exactly innocent of this charge of wanting to restrict or limit the dissemination or translation of the Bible, I was well aware that it was an attempt to reign in the Protestant fervor that the royals of England had unleashed and that would soon consume them.
You wrote:
“The Tyndall translation was forbidden by the Church.”
Please show me where the Catholic Church forbade Tyndale translation? At best it was the Church in England was it not? After all, this was an English language Bible was it not? Also, whether Tyndale’s translation was immaterial as to whether or not he was tried for translating the Bible or even if laypeople were allowed to own and read vernacular translations. You realize that, of course, right?
“The authorized translation was into Latin.”
Incorrect. In the 1520s there was no authorized translation and the Vulgate was rarely thought of as a translation because of its ancient past.
The Vulgate only became an authorized translation or edition at the time of Council of Trent (about 1546) as a response to Protestant heresy. By that time, Tyndale was dead for years.
“Yes, Henry VIII was to show that neither side was exactly innocent of this charge of wanting to restrict or limit the dissemination or translation of the Bible, I was well aware that it was an attempt to reign in the Protestant fervor that the royals of England had unleashed and that would soon consume them.”
I have no reason to believe you were “well aware” from what you have written so far.
Was rarely thought of as a translation? And that means that it wasn’t a translation? Latin is a translation of the original Greek and Hebrew.
Tyndall fled England and was hunted down by those “faithful to the Church” because of his translations. The official charges are meaningless, his fame was as a translator and it was his infamy that led to him being a hunted fugitive brought up on charges of heresy.
It was obvious that I said “both Catholics and Protestants” and then gave an example of each, Henry VIII being so famously Protestant that I thought it went without mention, but perhaps you hail from Rio Linda?
Back in about 1970 I had a visitor in my high school Sunday class that asked:
“Tell me what sin is, and don’t give the list; don’t dance, don’t go to the movies, don’t curse, but what does the Bible say what sin is.”
I was not ready for that question! So I said come back next week and I will have the answer. He did, and here is the answer:
1)A high look, and a proud heart and the plowing of the wicked is sin. (Proverbs 21:4)
2)The thought of foolishment is sin....(Proverbs 24:9a)
3).......for whatsover is not of faith is sin. (Romans 14:23)
4)Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. (James 4:17)
5)Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law, for sin is the transgression of the law. (1 John 3:4)
6)All unrighteousness is sin..... (1 John 5:17)
7)For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)
8)Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin, and sin, when is finished, it bringeth forth death. (James 1:15) That is the Bible L.S.D.=Lust,Sin and Death)
9)For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:23)
A couple of questions
What did Christians believe in place sola scriptura prior to the Bible being put together in the fourth century?
Why do the Greeks not believe pentecostal/protestant translations of the original greek text, and actually have dogmas almost identical to “Latin” Catholic dogmas?
Who compiled the books of the bible?
How do we know that each book of the Bible is inspired? Did an angel drop it in a nicely wrapped package one day in England in the 1600’s?
You wrote:
“Was rarely thought of as a translation?”
Yes, it was ancient don’t forget.
“And that means that it wasn’t a translation?”
No, it was a translation, but it had existed already for 11 centuries by the time of the Protestant Revolution.
“Latin is a translation of the original Greek and Hebrew.”
Yes, it was - but it was 11 centuries old and was the only Bible in continuous use in the West for all that time. The fact that it was a translation itself was rarely if ever an issue. This is not a difficult issue to understand. You seem to be struggling with these basic facts.
“Tyndall fled England and was hunted down by those “faithful to the Church” because of his translations.”
As Daniell points out it was not because of his Bible translation, however. He was already accused of heresy BEFORE he began his translation of the Bible and his translation of the Bible - the act of translating it - was NEVER an issue at his trial. Again, this is clear from Daniell’s work and well as Demaus’. You’ve never read either one of those, right?
“The official charges are meaningless, his fame was as a translator and it was his infamy that led to him being a hunted fugitive brought up on charges of heresy.”
No.
1) The official charges meant everything for those were the reasons he was tried. Bible translation was not a crime in Holland or to the Dutch Church or the Inquisition.
2) He had no “infamy” as a Bible translator on the continent because those were not English speaking lands. His Bible would essentially be a closed book to them - rather ironic when you think about it!
3) His other - non-Biblical - translations certainly got him into trouble and those were much more widely distributed in Latin and English then his Bible at that time.
“It was obvious that I said “both Catholics and Protestants” and then gave an example of each,...”
Uh, no. You gave no specific example of Catholic suppressing the Bible. Tyndale is not an example of that at all. Those are just the facts. You may not like it, but that’s the way it is.
“Henry VIII being so famously Protestant that I thought it went without mention, but perhaps you hail from Rio Linda?”
The best you can do to defend your error and poorly put together post is borrow from Rush Limbaugh? So, Rush for your comebacks and Wikipedia for your citations? You don’t stand a chance here on this topic with that backdrop.
I suggest you actually read a BOOK.
Present some actual examples of what you claim.
The Bishop of Rome (the word "Pope" was invented much later) could not appoint Bishops in the territory in which the Bishop of Alexandria had jurisdiction.
There was no such thing as primacy of the "Pope" at the time.
Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.
You wrote:
“Latin is a translation of the Bible.”
No, Latin is a language. The Vulgate is a translation of the Bible.
“The antiquity of the translation may fool the credulous into thinking it was the original language, but it always was and always will be a translation.”
Agreed. Have I ever stated otherwise? Let’s take a look shall we?
Post # 53: “No, it was a translation, but it had existed already for 11 centuries by the time of the Protestant Revolution.”
Post #53: “Yes, it was [a translation] - but it was 11 centuries old and was the only Bible in continuous use in the West for all that time.”
And again, in post #53: “The fact that it was a translation itself was rarely if ever an issue.”
So, there are three separate comments from me stating the obvious to us both - that the Vulgate was a translation. Yet you respond - ignoring everything I said - wrote this:
“If you cannot even keep that salient fact straight in your head there is obviously no ground for discussion with you.”
So, you have no proof about Tyndale then, right?
Tyndall was tried and executed by Catholics for “heresy”. His most famous heresy, and the one that had him flee England, was the translation of the Bible into English.
Many translations of the Bible have been forbidden by the Church's index of forbidden books.
You can read all about it here:
The Sixth Nicene Canon and the Papacy
"Let me, at the risk of being tedious, state, first of all, my understanding of the passage. The supremacy of the Bishop of Alexandria had been contested by the Meletian bishops. They had, asked him, if not in words at least in facts, upon what warrant he based his claim to rule over and depose his fellow-bishops. If he had a title let him produce it. Now the Alexandrian prelate had no written document of any kind to produce. The Council of Nicaea, therefore, came to his assistance, by decreeing that the Patriarch's [16] authority must be respected, and that for two reasons: first, because it was (archaia), immemorial, aboriginal; and second, because it was sanctioned by constant recognition on the part of the Roman Pontiff. Two very good reasons".......A quote from the above.
There was no "Pope". The Bishop of Rome did not have Primacy over the whole Church.
In fact The First Council of Nicæa (A.D. 325)was called by Constantine. If there was any Primacy over the whole Church it was his.
You wrote:
“Your lame defense was that ‘people didn’t think of the Latin Bible as a translation’.”
I have never made a lame defense in my life. I merely stated a fact. Here is EXACTLY what I wrote: “In the 1520s there was no authorized translation and the Vulgate was rarely thought of as a translation because of its ancient past.”
Notice, I used the past tense. To assume that people were stupid because the ancient Bible they used was rarely thought of as a translation is wrongheaded. They knew no other Bible commonly.
“Despite what stupid people “think” of the Latin translation of the Bible, it is a translation of the Bible.”
They weren’t stupid, not are you helping to prove your original erroneous point about Tyndale. Nice dodge though.
“Your quibble that it wasn’t “thought of” as a translation makes either you or the people doing the “thinking” sound pretty stupid.”
No, actually it doesn’t. It would be insipid not to realize that it is part of history that many readers of the Vulgate had it so thoroughly a part of their culture that its standing as a translation was all but forgotten by them. That’s the reality of history. I acknowledge that historical fact, while you dismiss it because you think the original historical reality shows stupidity. Whether or not people were stupid for believing it is irrelevant as to whether or not they believed it. I think people were stupid for voting for Obama. That doesn’t mean that I deny that they did it or that I think it is stupid for mentioning the historical reality that millions voted for Obama. Yet, that is exactly the sort of thing you are doing.
“Tyndall was tried and executed by Catholics for “heresy”.”
And not for translating the Bible into English.
“His most famous heresy, and the one that had him flee England, was the translation of the Bible into English.”
No. Translating the Bible was never considered heresy by any inquisition, or canon lawyer. No one can be accused of a heresy that isn’t a heresy.
The fact of that is shown in your every post as you UTTERLY FAIL to present even a single example of what you claim from a reputable source.
“Many translations of the Bible have been forbidden by the Church’s index of forbidden books.”
So? That does not mean producing a vernacular translation is heresy. You do think oranges and apples are the same thing don’t you?
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.