Posted on 05/06/2011 11:09:57 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
While [King Henry VIII] was still Catholic, William Tyndale sought permission to translate the Bible into English so that even “a boy who drives the plow” might know Scripture. Permission was denied, and Tyndale moved to Germany where he completed the first translation of the English New Testament made from Greek. It was published in 1526, and over the next ten years 50,000 copies were smuggled into England. Tyndale was betrayed, captured, and in 1536 killed for the crime of publishing the New Testament in English.
Although his body was burned at the stake, Tyndale had unleashed an enormous demand for Bibles in “the vulgar English tongue.” A number of translations were printed, including the Bishops’ Bible and the immensely popular Geneva Bible, which was the Bible Shakespeare read and the Bible Puritans carried to New England.
Elizabeth I, who reigned from 1558 to 1603, sought to bring peace among religious factions. But more importantly for our story, varied creative forces came together then to form the most splendid age in English literature. James VI of Scotland was a product of this season of creativity. When James VI became king of all Great Britain and Ireland in 1603, he called a conference to try to settle differences between Anglicans and Puritans. Out of this conference came the decision to create a new translation of the Bible.
[SNIP]
The King James Bible is the best-selling English-language book of all time. It has been in print continuously for 400 years. It has helped form our language; it has given context to our literature; it has inspired our music; and for centuries it was the one book a family would own and read before all others
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Let's see where this is referenced from
Mozley prefers an unembellished version of the dramatic account filled with dialogue that Foxe received in manuscript, presumably from Richard Webb of Chipping Sodbury (I shall refer to Webb as the source). A natural tale-teller with an eye for colorful detail, Webb eventually joined the household of Hugh Latimer, a spellbinding preacher whose sermons were published by John Day in many editions.Was Webb an eye-witness or did the natural tale-teller in him surface? Who knows? But how difficult would it have been to give the name of the priest / learned man?
In fact, it would have made more sense "See, Tyndale debated with Fr. O'Riley the learned pastor and bested him" would be quite stunning, right? Yet we don't read the name -- quite strange...
Let's see where this is referenced from
Mozley prefers an unembellished version of the dramatic account filled with dialogue that Foxe received in manuscript, presumably from Richard Webb of Chipping Sodbury (I shall refer to Webb as the source). A natural tale-teller with an eye for colorful detail, Webb eventually joined the household of Hugh Latimer, a spellbinding preacher whose sermons were published by John Day in many editions.Was Webb an eye-witness or did the natural tale-teller in him surface? Who knows? But how difficult would it have been to give the name of the priest / learned man?
In fact, it would have made more sense "See, Tyndale debated with Fr. O'Riley the learned pastor and bested him" would be quite stunning, right? Yet we don't read the name -- quite strange...
In fact the link I gave above goes on to say
Foxe eradicates Webb's personal voice and delivers the story in the third person from the vantage point of an omniscient narrator. At times this change weakens the force of Tyndale's own testimony by relegating it to unsubstantiated indirect discourse, rather than words recounted by a recognizable tale-teller.and goes on to say
Claiming authority with the refrain "as Tyndale saith," Foxe quotes and paraphrases from Tyndale's texts in a way that allows the translator to join Webb and Poyntz as a narrator. Tyndale's polemical voice now intrudes through interpolations within the body of his life story. Marginal gl osses added by Foxe direct the reader to accept unambiguously tendentious interpretations. Thus a marginal clarification informs the reader flatly that Tyndale "instructeth Master Walsh and his wife in the truth." This gloss complements an interpolated attack on high-ranking clerics at the Walshes' table for "uttering their blindness and ignorance without any resistance or gainsaying." Another polemical note attacks the learned man with whom Tyndale debated for preferring "the pope's law. . . before God's law."Now this points out Webb as a tale-teller -- whether it is true or false, I don't know, but I do know that if I was talking about some guy who bested a "learned man" (or was it a "priest" -- the accounts differ), I'd write down the name of the "learned man"/"priest" -- it would make for a better polemic "Tyndale bested Fr. O'Reilly the learned pastor!" has more weight that "'e bested a learned man" -- unless you have no proof that the "learned man" was a priest or even learned or even if that anecdote actually happened....
“I say it was true. The “market” for Tyndale’s translation were the nobles who would know to READ Latin.”
Not true. Regardless of what the literacy rates were - and no one knows exactly - they were not zero. Books were already being printed in English, and commoners were buying. Not to use for fire making, but to READ.
When King Henry authorized the Chained Bible, and copies were chained to every church in England, it wasn’t so the nobles and wealthy could go read them there. The nobles and wealthy could easily afford to buy their own copy. Further, the persecution of the Lollards - before Tyndale - shows that many outside the nobility could read.
The way Tyndale’s NT was published shows it wasn’t meant for rich men. It was published as cheaply as possible because the goal was distribution to the masses. Merchants, for example, could often read.
Meanwhile, as I have shown, the goal of the Catholic Church was to stop any translation into the vernacular, and the justification was that commoners were not able to understand the subtlety of the scriptures. It was a conscious decision to prevent scripture from being read by commoners. This isn’t in dispute - the Catholic Church made their goal clear.
“they had access to the Bibles in the Churches which were in Latin and which were accurate, unlike the translations we see used by Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses”
Talk about a red herring! Y’all have already admitted that Wycliffe’s Bible was accurate. So was Tyndale’s. It is dishonest to claim otherwise. Thomas More spent 750,000 words attacking it, and failed miserably. And More KNEW he was lying. His excuse was that Tyndale was a heretic, so his translation was wrong even if he used the same words that Erasmus did. That is simply STUPID, and Thomas More wasn’t stupid - which leaves dishonest.
There were plenty of Catholic scholars who knew enough Greek to read and see that Tyndale’s translation was accurate. It was a more literal translation than the KJV, which later formed the basis for the revision of the DR Bible honored by Catholics today.
Please do NOT insult my intelligence by comparing the Luther or Tyndale translations with those put out by Jehovah Witnesses.
“Vernacular, vetted translations were allowed — there were Middle English versions prior to Wyclife, but the key point was that they were vetted.”
No, the key point was that they couldn’t be widely distributed. Once they could, the Catholic Church clamped down. I’ve provided you with the quotes from the Catholic Church about what they did and why. They allowed the reading of common translations to people who the priests were certain ‘could handle it’. In some cases, they banned them outright, including Catholic made translations.
“The Synod of Toulouse in 1229 forbade the laity to have in their possession any copy of the books of the Old and the New Testament except the Psalter and such other portions as are contained in the Breviary or the Hours of the Blessed Mary. “We most strictly forbid these works in the vulgar tongue” (Harduin, Concilia, xii, 178; Mansi, Concilia, xxiii, 194)...
...Pius IV published the index prepared by the commission mentioned above. Herein ten rules are laid down, of which the fourth reads thus: “Inasmuch as it is manifest from experience that if the Holy Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue, be indiscriminately allowed to every one, the rashness of men will cause more evil than good to arise from it, it is, on this point, referred to the judgment of the bishops or inquisitors, who may, by the advice of the priest or confessor, permit the reading of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue by Catholic authors, to those persons whose faith and piety they apprehend will be augmented and not injured by it; and this permission must be had in writing. But if any shall have the presumption to read or possess it without such permission, he shall not receive absolution until he have first delivered up such Bible to the ordinary.”
The problem wasn’t the quality of translation, but WHO could read it.
“Of course we’re worried about the common man — the same reason why you don’t give a teenager the Jehovah’s Witness translation of the Bible and even more so in the days before the internet...”
I wouldn’t give the Jehovah Witness translation to ANYONE, because it is a bad translation. You can buy Tyndale’s translation, or read it online. It isn’t perfect, as Tyndale knew, but it was very accurate. If you have any specific verses you want to claim distort the meaning to create a heresy, please back up your claim with specifics.
Luther’s translation is still the basis of modern German Bibles. It has been revised, as has the KJV, but not rejected thru nearly 500 years of use. Catholics will harp on “...the addition of the word alone to Romans 1:17 is a good example of how one can build up philosophy from a wrong translation”. Luther was translating into German, and like any translator, he could not give a word for word substitution. His own explanation can be found here (Romans 3:28 - hadn’t seen Romans 1:17 cited before):
An Open Letter on Translating (http://www.bible-researcher.com/luther01.html)
“I know very well that in the original text this word does not occur. Nevertheless it belongs in any good German translation… Whenever we place two things in opposition and want to make clear that we acknowledge or accept the one and reject the other, we use the word ‘only.’ ‘The farmer brings no money but corn only.’ ‘No, at the moment I really have no money, but only grain.’ ‘I have only eaten, but not yet drunk.’ ‘Have you only written, without rereading?’ This is the form which we use in countless expressions: over against ‘not’ or ‘none’ we have the word ‘only,’ to make the contrast clear.”
Luther approached the work of a translator honestly. If Luther was attempting to radically distort the New Testament, his “doctored” work failed in many ways. Luther did not add the word “alone” to Galatians 2:16 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] , nor did he remove “alone” from James 2. Even in his revision of the Latin Vulgate, Luther left the Latin of Romans 3:28 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] as it was, because the contrast was apparent.”
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2008/07/debate-did-martin-luther-mistranslate.html
“And note that these Bibles in the vernacular were complete Bibles, unlike Tyndale’s translation.”
Ummm...Tyndale was killed by the Catholics before he could finish his translation. That was hardly his fault. And he was translating into English, not German, The contrast with the Menten Bible would be Luther’s, and Luther’s translation, as I’ve shown, went far beyond the Menten Bible in getting scripture into the hands of commoners.
“Commoners before the printing press could not read and could not afford to own a Bible. It wasn’t a matter of the Church keeping the Bible out of their hands.”
King Henry solved that problem with the Chained Bible. Anyone could go to their local church and read it (or ask a fried or teacher to read it for them).
I’ve demonstrated that it was a deliberate decision, starting before Wycliffe, to prevent the spread and use of vernacular translations. The Catholic Church had vernacular translation burned, as a matter of policy. They burned Tyndale’s translation, when they could. Heck, they burned TYNDALE, when they could!
Further, the printing press dates to the 1400s. The attack against vernacular translations continued from the 1200s thru the 1800s (1836, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia).
“To claim that Tyndale did more to bring Scripture to the people than the entirety of the 1500 years of Church history before Tyndale is myth.”
Well, Tyndale didn’t have 1500 years. He had a bit over 40 before he was killed by the Catholic Church (for ‘heresy’). But yes, he did far more to distribute scripture to the English in his lifetime than the entire Catholic Church in England had done during the previous 1500 years. At the time of his death, there were only TWO complete translations of the NT into English - Wycliffe and his own. For 1500 years, the Catholic Church had failed to make vernacular translations of the entire NT into whatever form of English existed at the time.
And remember, the Apostles knew scripture. The Bereans were commended for studying scripture in Acts. It wasn’t a lack of technology, but will.
I want to thank Cronos for this passage: “By 1500, he estimates the literacy among males still did not exceed 10-25%.”
If one person in ten could read, then most people would know someone who could read to them. The poorest might not, but the middle class would know someone who could read. That is why the Chained Bible - which was mostly Tyndale’s translation - worked.
“I’m not arguing about the doctrine but about the mistranslation — Our main topic is on the errors in translation. If you want to stick to one topic at a time, it would be good.”
I’ll jump in one more time - specifics. You’ve complained about Luther, and I’ve given a response to the adding ‘alone’ to a verse. He said it was required for a good translation into vernacular German, and cited Catholic scholars to show it didn’t change the meaning.
ANY translation can be attacked for a verse or two. That does NOT make them attempts at deception, like the JW distortion. I have a half dozen English translations sitting within a few feet of me. None are perfect, but any is better than no Bible at all.
Luther’s translation is still in common use after 500 years. The KJV, which leaned heavily on Tyndale’s, is still around after 400, and was the basis for the Challoner (sp?) revision of the DR Bible in the 1700s.
As I have pointed out, the Catholic Church objected to vernacular translation. Not because they were bad translations, but because commoners could understand it when read.
“But how difficult would it have been to give the name of the priest / learned man?”
Except Foxe wasn’t writing a dissertation...
But that's not true considering that there WERE vernacular translations in various language before -- authorized by The Church
The nobles and wealthy could easily afford to buy their own copy --> not necessarily.
Firstly, the "wealthy" were most from the nobles as tradesmen were still not "rich" and
secondly, many nobles were not "rich" either and many were not educated -- like many of the barons in the Western Marches
Merchants could often read -- again, not completely true. While many merchants could, most did not, hence the 10-15% literacy rate. Secondly, those who COULD would be more adept in math and in basic numbering for their own benefit -- MOST had no free time to read. That leisure time comes as society progresses
“they had access to the Bibles in the Churches which were in Latin and which were accurate, unlike the translations we see used by Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses” -- hardly a red herring. I never said that either was accurate or not, I just pointed out that all translations had to be vetted -- if they WERE, then they were "published" -- the reasoning was to prevent cases like the Jehovah's Witnesses translations.
Thomas More spent 750,000 words attacking it, and failed miserably. -- examples of "failing miserably"?
And More KNEW he was lying -- how would you know this?
There were plenty of Catholic scholars who knew enough Greek to read and see that Tyndale’s translation was accurate. -- who?
. Once they could, the Catholic Church clamped down -- Proof that the allowed, vernacular vetted translations such as the Middle English versions prior to Wyclife were in any way "clamped down"? I may have missed these in your posts -- if you can point them out to me again I would be grateful, thank you
2. " of the Albigenses and Waldenses" -- they had distorted Gnostic "bibles" -- more distorted than the Jehovah's Witnesses. in fact they could be one of the triggering factors against vernacularization
3. The Wycliffe edition was still not cheap -- remember that the printing press was not yet invented. Wycliffe's Bible is direct transliteration, word for word, leading to confusion or meaninglessness, hence the banning
Also do note, population of England+Wales = 2.5 million, and the Peasant Revolt going on. Archbishop of Canterbury uses this as a pretext to turn Church and Parliament against Wycliffe
The next version made by the Lollards had distortions which is why it was banned
In some languages and before the Catholic Church recognized the danger, yes. However:
"The Synod of Toulouse in 1229 forbade the laity to have in their possession any copy of the books of the Old and the New Testament except the Psalter and such other portions as are contained in the Breviary or the Hours of the Blessed Mary. "We most strictly forbid these works in the vulgar tongue" (Harduin, Concilia, xii, 178; Mansi, Concilia, xxiii, 194). The Synod of Tarragona (1234) ordered all vernacular versions to be brought to the bishop to be burned. James I renewed thin decision of the Tarragona synod in 1276."
Also note:
"The Bishop Metz had written to Innocent III that there existed his diocese a perfect frenzy for the Bible in the vernacular In 1199 the pope replied that in general desire to read the Scriptures was praiseworthy that the practice was dangerous for the simple and unlearned Epist II cxli Hurter Gesch des Innocent III Hamburg 1842 IV 501 sqq the death of the Innocent III the Synod of directed in 1229 its fourteenth canon against the of Sacred Scripture on the part of the Cathari pro hibemus ne hbros Veteris et Novi Testamenti germittatur habere Hefele Concilgeech Frei urg 1863 V 875 In 1233 the Synod of Tarragona issued a similar prohibition in its second canon but both these laws are intended only for the subject to the jurisdiction of the respective Hefele ibid 918 The Third Synod of Oxford 1408 owing to the disorders of the Lollards who in addition to their crimes of violence and anarchy had introduced virulent interpolations into the vernacular sacred text issued a law in virtue of which only the versions approved by the local ordinary or the provincial council were allowed to be read by the laity Hefele op cit VI 817
3 It is only in the beginning of the last five hundred years that we meet with a general law of the Church concerning the reading of the Bible in the vernacular On 24 March 1564 Pius IV promulgated in his Constitution Dominici gregis the Index of Prohibited Books According to the third rule the Old Testament may be read in the vernacular by pious and learned men according to the judgment of the bishop as a help to the better understanding of the Vulgate The fourth rule places in the hands of the bishop or the inquisitor the power of allowing the reading of the New Testament in the vernacular to laymen who according to the judgment of their confessor or their pastor can profit by this practice Sixtus V reserved this power to himself or the Sacred Congregation of the Index and Clement VIII added this restriction to the fourth rule of the Index by way of appendix..."
http://books.google.com/books?id=3D0UAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA640&lpg=PA640&dq=Synod+of+Toulouse+in+1229+bible&source=bl&ots=do_-xZ4s-a&sig=PD8RRWJD3MyAZisSjIV7KeTo_LI&hl=en&ei=zdXITbXVFoG8sAO1g62SAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCEQ6AEwATgU#v=onepage&q=Synod%20of%20Toulouse%20in%201229%20bible&f=false
"Merchants could often read -- again, not completely true. While many merchants could, most did not, hence the 10-15% literacy rate. Secondly, those who COULD would be more adept in math and in basic numbering for their own benefit -- MOST had no free time to read."
As you pointed out, the literacy rate was around 10-25%. Even if we take the lowest figure, that means that one person out of ten could read. Suppose you took the villages of Lower and Upper Heyford north of Oxford. Semi-rural, about 15 miles north of Oxford - I used to live there. Let's suppose that in 1550 there were 300 people living there - then about 30 could read. When King Henry distributed the Chained Bible, that meant any of the 300 could ask one of the 30 who could read to read a passage to him - in his native tongue. And at the high end, we would have had 25% or 75 people who could read...
"I just pointed out that all translations had to be vetted -- if they WERE, then they were "published"
No. I've pointed out that it was Catholic policy to stop vernacular translations from getting into the hands of common men. Pope Sixtus V required that he alone could give permission to read a vernacular translation. Just how many men do you think were given permission by the Pope personally to own and read a vernacular translation?
And the vetting you describe was for Catholic dogma, not accuracy. When Tyndale translate elder as elder instead of bishop, he did so accurately. When he used 'repent' instead of 'do penance', he was translating accurately a word the Catholic Church deliberately changed to support their dogma.
Acts 2.38:
"But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." - Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
"Peter said unto them: Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, For the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the holy ghost." - Tyndale, modern spelling
"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." KJV
Which is accurate? Does the word mean repent, or do penance?
"metanoeo lit., "to perceive afterwards" (meta, "after," implying "change," noeo, "to perceive;" nous, "the mind, the seat of moral reflection"), in contrast to pronoeo, "to perceive beforehand," hence signifies "to change one's mind or purpose," always, in the NT, involving a change for the better, an amendment, and always, except in Luke_17:3,4, of "repentance" from sin. The word is found in the Synoptic Gospels (in Luke, nine times), in Acts five times, in the Apocalypse twelve times, eight in the messages to the churches, Rev_2:5 (twice), Rev_2:16,21 (twice), RV, "she willeth not to repent" (2nd part); Rev_3:3,19 (the only churches in those chapters which contain no exhortation in this respect are those at Smyrna and Philadelphia); elsewhere only in 2_Cor_12:21."
http://www.antioch.com.sg/cgi-bin/bible/vines/find_term.pl
"Repent ye (metanohsate). First aorist (ingressive) active imperative. Change your mind and your life. Turn right about and do it now."
http://www.studylight.org/com/rwp/view.cgi?book=ac&chapter=002&verse=038
"To begin, let us note that there were two Greek words sometimes translated repent. The weaker word was metamelomai (meh tah MEL oh my) and it meant to have a change of feeling, as when Judas “repented” of having betrayed hi s Lord (Matt 27:3). A better translation for this word is “to regret” or “to feel remorse.” But merely regretting a wrong action is less than real repentance. As Aristotle once noted, “Mean, good-for-nothing people are full of regret.”
The stronger word for repent was metanoeo (meh tah noh EH oh). This word meant to have a change of mind and action, as opposed to merely having a change of feeling. It meant to change your mind and do something about it! Plutarch, for instance, tells of “two murderers, who having spared a child, afterwards repented, and sought to slay it.” They changed their mind; they acted upon that change! For Christians, however, repentance is always from bad to good. When Polycarp was about to be martyred, the Pro-Consu1 threatened him, “I have wild beasts, I will deliver you to them, unless you repent.” Polycarp replied, “Call for them, for repentance from better to worse is not allowed us.” Having once made the right “change of mind” in turning to God, Polycarp would not change back."
http://occ.edu/Alumni/words.aspx
Tyndale was right. The word means repent, not "do penance". Happily, the NAB notes:
"7 [38] Repent and be baptized: repentance is a positive concept, a change of mind and heart toward God reflected in the actual goodness of one's life. It is in accord with the apostolic teaching derived from Jesus (⇒ Acts 2:42) and ultimately recorded in the four gospels. Luke presents baptism in Acts as the expected response to the apostolic preaching about Jesus and associates it with the conferring of the Spirit (⇒ Acts 1:5; ⇒ 10:44-48; ⇒ 11:16)."
It only took the Catholic Church 500 years to admit it was translating incorrectly. It changed the word of God to match its doctrine, rather than have its doctrine match God's Word!
"And More KNEW he was lying -- how would you know this?"
Simple. He knew that Erasmus had translated elder as elder instead of bishop (the same as Tyndale), and approved or Erasmus's translation while saying Tyndale's was false. That requires gross stupidity - and More was not stupid - or dishonesty.
"There were plenty of Catholic scholars who knew enough Greek to read and see that Tyndale’s translation was accurate. -- who?"
More, for one. He knew enough Greek to read it and compare it to Tyndale, but he LIED about Tyndale's translation. More KNEW that "metanoeo" meant repent, not "do penance". More lied to support Catholic doctrine.
"Proof that the allowed, vernacular vetted translations such as the Middle English versions prior to Wyclife were in any way "clamped down"?"
In England, the clamping down started with Wycliffe. Elsewhere, it had started before Wycliffe, as already shown above. And prior to Wycliffe, there was no English translation of the entire NT, although there was one of the Gospels.
If you want to read Tyndale's translation online, see here:
http://www.faithofgod.net/WTNT/
http://wesley.nnu.edu/fileadmin/imported_site/biblical_studies/tyndale/index.htm
If you want to see Wycliffe's, see here:
http://wesley.nnu.edu/fileadmin/imported_site/biblical_studies/wycliffe/
“Wycliffe’s Bible is direct transliteration, word for word, leading to confusion or meaninglessness, hence the banning”
“20 For of the werkis of the lawe ech fleisch schal not be iustified bifor hym; for bi the lawe ther is knowyng of synne.
21 But now with outen the lawe the riytwisnesse of God is schewid, that is witnessid of the lawe and the profetis.
22 And the riytwisnesse of God is bi the feith of Jhesu Crist in to alle men and on alle men that bileuen in hym; for ther is no departyng.
23 For alle men synneden, and han nede to the glorie of God;
24 and ben iustified freli bi his grace, bi the ayenbiyng that is in `Crist Jhesu.
25 Whom God ordeynede foryyuer, bi feith in his blood, to the schewyng of his riytwisnesse, for remyssioun of biforgoynge synnes,
26 in the beryng up of God, to the schewyng of his riytwisnesse in this tyme, that he be iust, and iustifyynge hym that is of the feith of Jhesu Crist.”
A tough read over 600 years later, but still understandable.
“The next version made by the Lollards had distortions which is why it was banned”
Really? The Lollards made another translation? When?
And were those ‘distortions’ any worse than found in the Douay-Rheims?
Why do anti-Catholics never learn?
Toulouse was a local council about the Albigensians. It effected no one outside of the region of southern France. And since we have Catholis Bibles, New Testaments and partials IN FRENCH from that time and afterward, it is clear that it was never intended as a blanket ban but as a strike against the heretical Albigensians.
And about what Innocent III said, he was right - as demonstrated by Protestants at FR almost every single day.
You wrote:
“As I have pointed out, the Catholic Church objected to vernacular translation.”
Actually no such thing happened and you presented no evidence it did.
“Not because they were bad translations, but because commoners could understand it when read.”
Again, false. You presented no such evidence either.
“Toulouse was a local council about the Albigensians.”
It was the start, not the finish. As I have documented, the ban on vernacular translations spread. It was 1408 before it became illegal to translate in the vernacular in England - OK, not illegal, you just needed permission from a Church that never gave it.
In other places, a vernacular translation was allowed IF the person owning it was considered up to the task - according to the bishop, or sometimes requiring permission of the Pope himself.
“And about what Innocent III said, he was right - as demonstrated by Protestants at FR almost every single day.”
Given that the Catholic Church long used “do penance” instead of “repent”, I find his concern about the sublimity of scripture laughable. Those who feel free to alter the word of God to suit their doctrine rather than their doctrine to match God’s word will get their reward...hope they like it.
“As I have pointed out, the Catholic Church objected to vernacular translation.”
Actually no such thing happened and you presented no evidence it did.
Posts 68 & 69. It was a matter of policy. If you wish to explain away the policy, have a nut - but don’t pretend it didn’t exist.
at home now, will reply in more detail tomorrow — question, is that the first edition which Wycliffe himself translated or is it the second edition which was translated by others?
You wrote:
“Posts 68 & 69. It was a matter of policy.”
Alright, then show me the policy. When you fail to do so - and you will - we will know, once again, that you are wrong. There was no such policy.
“If you wish to explain away the policy, have a nut - but don’t pretend it didn’t exist.”
I am not the one pretending. Again, if you’re going to claim it was policy, then show me the policy.
You wrote:
““It was the start, not the finish.”
Nope. It was a one-off. It dealt with one issue in one regard and it never came up in the region again at a regional council. Ever. Also, we know there were translations made in the local dialect so we know this was about the Albigensians and not the Bible in the vernacular itself.
“As I have documented, the ban on vernacular translations spread. It was 1408 before it became illegal to translate in the vernacular in England - OK, not illegal, you just needed permission from a Church that never gave it.”
Except it was given. I posted in the past on this very subject here in this thread and provided documented evidence. Are you ignoring documentation from historians if they don’t square with your already-proven-wrong theory? Also, are you honest claiming something spread to the country next door but it took an amazing 179 years to do it? That sounds moronic.
“In other places, a vernacular translation was allowed IF the person owning it was considered up to the task - according to the bishop, or sometimes requiring permission of the Pope himself.”
If that were true, then that would mean translations were allowed. That ends your argument. You lost even according to your own claims.
“Given that the Catholic Church long used “do penance” instead of “repent”, I find his concern about the sublimity of scripture laughable.”
Many of us find anti-Catholic failure at making a coherent argument laughable.
“Those who feel free to alter the word of God to suit their doctrine rather than their doctrine to match God’s word will get their reward...hope they like it.”
Those who feel free to alter the truthful record of history to suit their doctrines are called Protestants. They too will get their reward. They probably won’t like it.
Policy: “1. a definite course of action adopted for the sake of expediency, facility, etc.: We have a new company policy.
2. a course of action adopted and pursued by a government, ruler, political party, etc.: our nation’s foreign policy.
3. action or procedure conforming to or considered with reference to prudence or expediency: It was good policy to consent.”
The Catholic Church repeatedly took a course of action either banning vernacular translations, or restricting their reading to people who wouldn’t cause a problem by reading a vernacular translation. At times, it required the Pope himself to approve a person.
With the appearance, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, of the Albigenses and Waldenses, who appealed to the Bible in all their disputes with the Church, the hierarchy was furnished with a reason for shutting up the Word of God. The Synod of Toulouse in 1229 forbade the laity to have in their possession any copy of the books of the Old and the New Testament except the Psalter and such other portions as are contained in the Breviary or the Hours of the Blessed Mary. “We most strictly forbid these works in the vulgar tongue” (Harduin, Concilia, xii, 178; Mansi, Concilia, xxiii, 194). The Synod of Tarragona (1234) ordered all vernacular versions to be brought to the bishop to be burned. James I renewed thin decision of the Tarragona synod in 1276. The synod held there in 1317 under Archbishop Ximenes prohibited to Beghards, Beguines, and tertiaries of the Franciscans the possession of theological books in the vernacular (Mansi, Concilia, xxv, 627). The order of James I was renewed by later kings and confirmed by Paul II (1464-71). Ferdinand and Isabella (1474-1516) prohibited the translation of the Bible into the vernacular or the possession of such translations (F. H. Reusch, Index der verbotenen i, Bonn, 1883, 44).
In England Wyclif’s Bible-translation caused the resolution passed by the third Synod of Oxford (1408): “No one shall henceforth of his own authority translate any text of Scripture into English; and no part of any such book or treatise composed in the time of John Wycliffe or later shall be read in public or private, under pain of excommunication” (Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, vi, 984). But Sir Thomas More states that he had himself seen old Bibles which were examined by the bishop and left in the hands of good Catholic laymen (Blunt, Reformation of the Church of England, 4th ed., London, 1878, i, 505). In Germany, Charles IV issued in 1369 an edict to four inquisitors against the translating and the reading of Scripture in the German language. This edict was caused by the operations of Beghards and Beguines. In 1485 and 1486, Berthold, archbishop of Mainz, issued an edict against the printing of religious books in German, giving among other reasons the singular one that the German language was unadapted to convey correctly religious ideas, and therefore they would be profaned. Berthold’s edict had some influence, but could not prevent the dissemination and publication of new editions of the Bible. Leaders in the Church sometimes recommended to the laity the reading of the Bible, and the Church kept silence officially as long as these efforts were not abused....
...In 1584 Pius IV published the index prepared by the commission mentioned above. Herein ten rules are laid down, of which the fourth reads thus: “Inasmuch as it is manifest from experience that if the Holy Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue, be indiscriminately allowed to every one, the rashness of men will cause more evil than good to arise from it, it is, on this point, referred to the judgment of the bishops or inquisitors, who may, by the advice of the priest or confessor, permit the reading of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue by Catholic authors, to those persons whose faith and piety they apprehend will be augmented and not injured by it; and this permission must be had in writing. But if any shall have the presumption to read or possess it without such permission, he shall not receive absolution until he have first delivered up such Bible to the ordinary.” Regulations for booksellers follow, and then: “Regulars shall neither read nor purchase such Bibles without special license from their superiors.” Sixtus V substituted in 1590 twenty-two new rules for the ten of Pius IV. Clement VIII abolished in 1596 the rules of Sixtus, but added a “remark” to the fourth rule given above, which particularly restores the enactment of Paul IV. The right of the bishops, which the fourth rule implies, is abolished by the “remark,” and the bishop may grant a dispensation only when especially authorized by the pope and the Inquisition (Reusch, ut sup., i, 333). Benedict XIV enlarged, in 1757, the fourth rule thus: “If such Bible-versions in the vernacular are approved by the apostolic see or are edited with annotations derived from the holy fathers of the Church or from learned and Catholic men, they are permitted.” This modification of the fourth rule was abolished by Gregory XVI in pursuance of an admonition of the index-congregation, Jan. 7, 1836, “which calls attention to the fact that according to the decree of 1757 only such versions in the vernacular are to be permitted as have been approved by the apostolic see or are edited with annotations,” but insistence is placed on all those particulars enjoined by the fourth rule of the index and afterward by Clement VIII (Reusch, ut sup., ii, 852)...
...In Spain the Inquisitor-General de Valdes published in 1551 the index of Louvain of 1550, which prohibits “Bibles (New and Old Testaments) in the Spanish or other vernacular” (Reusch, ut sup., i, 133). This prohibition was abolished in 1778. The Lisbon index of 1824 in Portugal prohibited quoting in the vernacular in any book passages from the Bible. In Italy the members of the order of the Jesuits were in 1596 permitted to use a Catholic Italian translation of the Gospel-lessons. In France the Sorbonne declared, Aug. 26,1525, that a French translation of the Bible or of single books must be regarded as dangerous under conditions then present; extant versions were better suppressed than tolerated. In the following year, 1526, it prohibited the translation of the entire Bible, but permitted the translation of single books with proper annotations. The indexes of the Sorbonne, which by royal edict were binding, after 1544 contained the statement: “How dangerous it is to allow the reading of the Bible in the vernacular to unlearned people and those not piously or humbly disposed (of whom there are many in our times) may be seen from the Waldensians, Albigenses, and Poor Men of Lyons, who have thereby lapsed into error and have led many into the same condition. Considering the nature of men, the translation of the Bible into the vernacular must in the present be regarded therefore as dangerous and pernicious” (Reusch, ut sup., i, 151). “
“is that the first edition which Wycliffe himself translated or is it the second edition which was translated by others?”
I didn’t know there were two versions. I did know that Wycliffe himself wasn’t responsible for the full translation. I suspect the link is to the second and much more commonly found version.
Here, for example, is the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37) in this [first] version. (The spelling is modernized.)
Forsooth he, willing to justify himself, said to Jesus, ‘And who is my neighbour?’ Soothly Jesus beholding, said ‘Some man came down from Jerusalem into Jericho, and fell among thieves, which also robbed him and, wounds put in, went away, the man left half quick. Forsooth it befell, that some priest came down in the same way and, him seen, passed forth. Also forsooth and a deacon, when he was beside the place, and saw him, passed forth. Forsooth some man Samaritan, making journey, came beside the way, but he seeing him was stirred by mercy. And he, coming nigh bound together his wounds, holding in oil and wine. And he, putting on his horse, led into a stable, and did the cure of him. And another day he brought
forth two pence, and gave to the keeper of the stable, and said, “Have thou the cure of him, and whatever thing thou shalt give over, I shall yield to thee, when I shall come again.” Who of these three seemeth to thee to have been neighbour to him that fell among the thieves?’
And he said, ‘He that did mercy on him.’ And Jesus saith to him, ‘Go thou, and do thou in like manner.’
Earlier from the same article:
“An examination of the evidence, however, suggests that Wycliffe can be said to have translated the whole Bible only in the sense that ‘he who does something by the agency of another does it himself’ (qui facit per alium facit per se). Most of the translating was carried out by his disciples, but certainly at his instance. The primary evidence lies in the copies of the Wycliffite Bible that have survived, nearly 200 in number. It was a manuscript Bible, for its production and circulation belong to the period before the invention of printing in Western Europe; and even after printed books began to appear (about 1450) the Wycliffite Bible was long in being printed. The New Testament part of the work was first printed in 1731; the whole Wycliffite Bible in print was first published in 1850 (at Oxford), in a four-volume edition by Josiah Forshall and Sir Frederic Madden.
The comparative study of the manuscripts has revealed that there were two distinct versions of the Wycliffite Bible, an earlier and a later. The earlier version was probably completed while Wycliffe was alive; the later version, which represents a revision of the earlier one, was issued ten or twelve years after his death.
The manuscripts containing the earlier version are far fewer than those containing the later version. That is not surprising, because the later version was a popular work in idiomatic English, whereas the earlier was a rigidly literal rendering of the Latin Vulgate, regularly reproducing the constructions natural to Latin in preference to those characteristic of English idiom. Why should this be? Wycliffe himself was the master of a racy and pungent English style; the style of the earlier version cannot be put down to a donnish inability to achieve anything but a literal translation.
The reason for the literalness of the translation is simply that the Bible was treated as a law-code. The Bible, and not the corpus of canon law, was the codification of God’s law. Even civil law was secondary to God’s law set forth in the Bible. It should make no difference whether the Latin text or the English text was used. People of education could use the Latin text, but it was most desirable that those who had no Latin should have equal access to God’s law; hence the English version. But it had to be evident that, whether the Latin or the English text was used, the two texts exhibited a word-for-word identity. The lay leaders of John of Gaunt’s party could be satisfied that they were using (in English) precisely the same law-book as the learned clerks read in Latin.
Theological students, too, could derive an advantage from this word-for-word translation. In the standard glosses or commentaries on the sacred text, each individual Latin word was annotated; it was therefore easier to use them to elucidate the English Bible if each English word corresponded, as far as possible, to its Latin counter-part.”
While the first version is stilted, it is better than nothing. The second version is better English.
“When Sir Thomas More, in 1529, contrasted the ‘malicious’ translation of the Bible made by ‘the great arch-heretic Wyclyffe’ with the acceptable version ‘well and reverently read’ by many ‘good and godly people’, he went on to say:
Myself have seen, and can show you, Bibles fair and old written in English, which have been known and seen by the bishop of the diocese, and left in laymen’s hands, and women’s, to such as he knew for good and catholic folk that used it with devotion and soberness. But of truth, all such as are found in the hands of heretics, they use to take away. 14
There is no reason to doubt More’s personal witness. There was, however, one thing of which he was unaware: those English ‘Bibles fair and old’ were copies of the later Wycliffite version. There was nothing in the translation itself that smacked of Lollardy or any other form of ‘heresy’, and the copies bore no indication of the translators’ identity. Many bishops would feel quite happy to grant permission for the possession and use of such copies to those who could be trusted not to exploit the permission for ‘improper’ purposes.
But many others, who could not obtain official permission, refused to be deprived of the opportunity of reading the Scriptures in their own tongue, and met together in small groups to read and discuss them together. The house-meeting for reading the Bible in this way became a tradition that still lives on in English-speaking lands (as well as elsewhere), but in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries those who attended such groups did so at the risk of liberty and even of life itself.”
All quoted came from the 12 page article below:
http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_098_4_Bruce.pdf
I don't see anything wrong with an organization, any organization, saying that if you want to participate under our umbrella you have to play by our rules and use our rule book. With all of the misinterpretations from acceptable translations here on FR think of the problems there would have been if even the translations began as intentional misinterpretations. Think how bad it would be if the OPC or the Westboro Baptist Church were allowed to rewrite the Bible based upon what they wanted it to say. It would be worse than the JW and LDS claiming to be Catholic.
“If that were true, then that would mean translations were allowed. That ends your argument. You lost even according to your own claims.”
No. Anyone reading my posts knows I have said there were vernacular translations made, and sometimes by Catholics, but that the objective was to keep them from falling into the hands of commoners who would read them plainly.
“Except it was given. I posted in the past on this very subject here in this thread and provided documented evidence.”
The only complete translation of the NT into English prior to Tyndale was Wycliffe’s, and the Catholic Church did NOT give approval for it. Having been done before 1408, it wasn’t illegal provided the copy predated 1408, which is why Wycliffe Bibles tended to all have dates prior to 1408...and why Thomas More screwed up and praised the same translation he had condemned. From 1408 thru the Chained Bible, the Catholic Church did not approve of a single translation of the Bible into English.
“Given that the Catholic Church long used “do penance” instead of “repent”, I find his concern about the sublimity of scripture laughable. / Many of us find anti-Catholic failure at making a coherent argument laughable.”
Laugh if you will about deliberating changing God’s Word to meet man’s doctrine, but on the day when all must give account, God may not laugh with you.
It is ironic that some people still worship King James and his Bible, when James himself was an immoral homosexual and quite insane:
A physical weakling, as an adolescent James had shown himself to be a coward, who liked only to hunt, to read (which he did, prodigiously) and to talk. To protect himself he wore thick quilted doublets, so padded that they provided a kind of armor against any assassin who might attack him with a knife. When he revealed a sexual preference for men, falling in love with his cousin Esmé Stewart and elevating him to a position of authority on the royal council, some of his nobles kidnapped James and held him captive, banishing Stewart and controlling James’s every move. After nearly a year James escaped, but continued to resent his jailers; after he began to rule on his own behalf, at seventeen, he made it a priority to bring the turbulent Scots nobles under control.
As he aged James indulged his preference for handsome men, living apart from his wife. His doting fondness was part paternal, part erotic; he called his favorite George Villiers “sweet child and wife” and referred to himself as “your dear dad and husband.” But to his courtiers, the sight of the aging, paunchy, balding monarch, who according to one court observer had a tendency to drool, leaning on his paramours was utterly repellant.
The first of the king’s minions was Robert Carr, Groom of the Bedchamber, who the king elevated to earl of Somerset and appointed Lord Chamberlain. After six years of favors and royal gifts Carr was brought low, accused of murder and sent away from court. The second and greatest royal favorite, the extraordinarily handsome George Villiers, rose from cupbearer to Gentleman of the Bedchamber and ultimately to Earl of Buckingham.
“I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else,” James announced to his councilors, “and more than you who are here assembled.” He compared his love for the earl to Jesus’s affection for the “beloved disciple” John. “Jesus Christ did the same,” the king said, “and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had his John, and I have my George.”
With such pronouncements King James seemed to reach a new level of outrage, especially when he compounded his offense, in the view of many, by heaping Buckingham with costly jewels, lands, and lucrative offices.
-Royal Panoply, Brief Lives Of The English Monarchs
Carrolly Erickson, History Book Club
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.