Replies

“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.