“I don’t know how much you consider very little. 2-3 readings per liturgy, over a period 1500 years, amounts to a lot of plowboys hearing Scripture.”
Hmmm...a 1500 year old ploughboy? However, Pre-Vatican 2 covered 1% of the OT and 16% of the New Testament. I’m underwhelmed.
http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm
“What was the European literacy rate when Tyndale completed his translation? What percentage were English speakers?”
Good enough that he sold everything he could print.
“No, the question was of making sure translations were done accurately and stayed true.”
Not true. I have pointed out and backed up that it was a conscious decision to AVOID letting the common man read or know scripture. This isn’t open to dispute. Church officials of the time argued that a common man couldn’t understand the scripture unless a Priest taught it to him.
“It’s not about liking the source or not — what is the attestation? Foxe was written in 1553 and here makes a statement — but who has recited it to the author?”
I’m sorry that Foxe, writing within 50 years of the event, and within 30 of Tyndale’s death, didn’t make a recording or provide a scholarly thesis. Foxe had ample sources, including those who knew Tyndale. And Tyndale DID write about how he needed to make the scripture clear to the common man, and not have it restricted to church officials.
“Do we have any proof from Tyndale or anyone contemporary that this is what Tyndale said? Instead of someone writing about this a hundred+ years later.”
Foxe wrote in 1563, although he started work earlier. Tyndale died in 1536.
“Reading was not an option for the majority who were illiterate (and why? because work was needed on the fields etc. and educating was taking someone out of this area, so many parents did not do this, or if they wanted their kids to be educated they made them clerics)”
So...why did the Catholic Church try to keep it out of the hands of those who WERE literate? Surely you don’t argue that the Catholic Church was worried about Bibles falling into the hands of those who could NOT read?
“It is drawn from and makes allusions to scripture from beginning to end.”
Thrilling. That is NOT the same as reading God’s word. Why did the Apostles - fishermen - know scripture by heart? Why could they quote it in 35 AD? Here is a hint - it wasn’t because they saw pictures...
“People had not only artwork, but the scriptures in their own tongue long before Tyndale.”
In England, the first full translation was done by Wycliffe and his friends. The next was Tyndale’s. There was no complete translation into English before that - for the first 900+ years of the Catholic Church in England.
“The question is, “Who is the appointed guardian of scripture?” It must be the Church. It certainly can’t be Protestants.”
Now THAT is an honest response. Who must protect scripture from being read by commoners? The Catholic Church. Not a boast I would want to make, but it is honest!
“The Church never sold indulgences.”
Don’t be silly.
“There was nothing in Wycliffe’s translation itself that was a problem. It was the notes and usage by Lollards that was the issue.”
Wrong. And as I pointed out, Tyndale’s NT had no notes - but it was opposed by the Catholic Church. And don’t give some garbage about mistranslating unless you are prepared to back it up with actual mistranslations’. Thomas More tried, and failed miserably.
Good point -- I mistook the timeline for Tyndale as that for Wyclife
Foxe had ample sources, including those who knew Tyndale. -- yet how come these are not cited as proof that this anecdote was even real? Why not just say "xx heard this said in his presence?"
And Tyndale DID write about -- be that as it may, Tyndale did NOT write about this particular anecdote, which considering the availability of other commentaries by him is glaring
Mr. Rogers: So...why did the Catholic Church try to keep it out of the hands of those who WERE literate?
Because they didn't.
If you were literate in those days, you were mostly a clergyman or a noble (and that too not all Nobels).
If you were literate in those days, your learning was in Latin, not in your vernacular tongue. Even if you read other books in vernacular tongues, you would still know Latin as that was what the majority of books were written in (case in point, Isaac Newton's works like Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, published in 1687 were in Latin
If you were educated, you knew Latin and you could freely read any Bible in the Churches (the Bibles, like other books had had to be hand-written and were tremendously expensive)
The Church objected to unauthorized (read Gnostic etc. writings) translations which
All 6000 copies. As compared to 1500 years of scripture teaching by the Church. The claim that Tyndale brought more scripture to the plowboy than the Church looks like it is on pretty shaky ground.
In England, the first full translation was done by Wycliffe and his friends. The next was Tyndale’s. There was no complete translation into English before that - for the first 900+ years of the Catholic Church in England.
Tyndale didn't make a full translation either. And the 6000 copies published only contained a portion of his partial translation.
Shaky ground, indeed.
You wrote:
“Thrilling. That is NOT the same as reading God’s word.”
Who claimed it was? Not me.
” Why did the Apostles - fishermen - know scripture by heart?”
Did they always know it by heart or did that come with walking with God for three years? Why did they use the Septuagint most of the time they wrote, yet we know they spoke in Aramaic? Are you claiming they were well educated? I doubt you are. I don’t believe most people in the Middles Ages were well educated either. BUT THEY KNEW SCRIPTURE.
“Why could they quote it in 35 AD? Here is a hint - it wasn’t because they saw pictures...”
Why were they quoting it in Greek? Was someone writing it for them in Greek? Did they know Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek?
“In England, the first full translation was done by Wycliffe and his friends.”
That might be. They still had scriptures in their own tongue BEFORE him.
“The next was Tyndale’s. There was no complete translation into English before that - for the first 900+ years of the Catholic Church in England.”
As far as we KNOW, there was no COMPLETE translation until the time of Wycliffe. That doesn’t mean one didn’t exist.
“Now THAT is an honest response. Who must protect scripture from being read by commoners? The Catholic Church. Not a boast I would want to make, but it is honest!”
And I didn’t make the boast either, but you are saying I did when I didn’t. Once again we see who is honest and who is not. I am not inventing words and claiming you said them. Are you? Look at what I wrote. Look at what you said I said. They are two completely different ideas. Why is it that anti-Catholics are routinely dishonest men?
About this, “The Church never sold indulgences,” you wrote, “Don’t be silly.”
I’m not. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH NEVER ONCE SOLD AN INDULGENCE, EVER, ANYWHERE, TO ANYONE. There may have been Catholics who violated canon law and sold indulgences, but the Church never did so.
“Wrong. And as I pointed out, Tyndale’s NT had no notes - but it was opposed by the Catholic Church.”
Tyndale was a known heretic who had no permission to print anything in England so he illegally smuggled in his books. Since he was a heretic and acting illegally no one should be surprised that anything he produced was viewed as tainted by his heresy. How convenient of you to not mention that he was commonly viewed as a heretic, was printing books without English permission and smuggling them illegally into the country. Little facts like those matter.
“And don’t give some garbage about mistranslating unless you are prepared to back it up with actual mistranslations’. Thomas More tried, and failed miserably”
He didn’t fail. He also didn’t try. Also, last time I checked, Tyndale is an all-but-forgotten man remembered by anti-Catholics, a handful of scholars, and some 16th century translation fans while Thomas More is a canonized saint, recognized the world over as a great scholar in his day, and has movies, plays and books about him. If that is failure, please, MORE!