“If he was hated by almost everyone around him - the Catholic Church - then why did it take 50 years to do that?”
Because the English nobility appreciated his stand against the Catholic Church owning great riches...
“Tyndale lived in hiding before he began his translation.”
No, he went into hiding AFTER his translation of the New Testament. He went abroad in 1524/25, since translating it without permission in England would lead to his death - it had been outlawed in 1408. While his travels aren’t entirely known, he seems to have gone into hiding about the time his first edition of the NT was published.
“Psalms are part of the Bible and you can’t prove Wycliffe translated all of the Bible either.”
Psalters are small parts of the Bible, and I have repeatedly posted on this thread that the translating was done by Wycliffe and his followers.
“Do you have any proof that Wycliffe even translated all of scripture himself? Was he aided by anyone? Do you have any evidence he used no other translations?”
I indicated in previous posts on this thread that he probably did NOT translate the entire Bible all by himself. He was certainly aided, and a revised edition leaned heavily on work by his followers. And there was no complete translation anywhere in English for him to use as help.
Perhaps you should read about Wycliffe before blathering about him.
“There was no risk of death. No Lollard was at risk of death for possessing a book, any book. I have already shown that in previous threads.”
They most certainly were. I have a book that consists of the trials in one city of Lollards. The 1408 Oxford Constitutions made owning scripture translated in the vernacular without permission punishable by death.
Again, this is not open to dispute. The text of the Oxford Constitutions can be read. I suggest you do so.
Try reading here:
http://www.archive.org/stream/lollardbibleothe00deanuoft/lollardbibleothe00deanuoft_djvu.txt
The digitization is lacking, but it addresses More’s error about Wycliffe.
“More and others knew of Bibles in the vernacular THEN.”
What they knew of were translations by Wycliffe. Again, no translation of the entire Bible or entire New Testament into English has been found dating before Wycliffe, or apart from him prior to Tyndale.
If you wish to claim they exist, then you need to find one. Those More mentioned by owner were all Wycliffe’s.
“Since we know gospels existed in England in the vernacular since at least the 8th century, it is entirely possible someone prepared an entire New Testament in Middle English before Wycliffe.”
None has been found or claimed to exist. And Wycliffe wrote in the English available to him. I refuse to add Middle to all my posts. The fact remains it was a vernacular translation, meant for commoners, and also used by nobility. No other translation has ever been found.
“First, heretics do not believe in the Bible.”
Sorry, but the Catholic Church opposed vernacular translations for hundreds of years because they feared what men would realize when they read the scriptures - that Catholic doctrine is not found in scripture, and that it frequently conflicts with scripture.
“No such policy ever existed. And that’s exactly why you fail to ever document it. “
It isn’t open to debate. It was widely taught, and many died for defying it. If you don’t know enough about history to know that, then you need to step away from FreeRepublic and learn.
According to the British Library:
“Christians continued to be governed from Rome by the Pope during medieval times. Church services were conducted in Latin throughout the Christian world, and translation of the Latin Bible into the vernacular, in other words the local language anyone could understand, was actively discouraged.
None the less, by Tyndale’s day, vernacular Bibles were available in parts of Europe, where they added fuel to the popular questioning of religious authority initiated by the monk Martin Luther - a religious crisis known as the Reformation, which resulted in the splitting of Christianity into Catholic and Protestant Churches.
In England, however, under the 1408 Constitutions of Oxford, it was strictly forbidden to translate the Bible into the native tongue. This ban was vigorously enforced by Cardinal Wolsey and the Lord Chancellor, Sir Thomas More, in an attempt to prevent the rise of English ‘Lutheranism’. The only authorised version of the Bible was St Jerome’s Latin translation, known as the ‘Vulgate’, made in the fourth century and understood only by highly-educated people.”
http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/sacredtexts/tyndale.html
Or you can read what Thomas More wrote, if you don’t mind reading 9 volumes of dishonesty.
“Because the English nobility appreciated his stand against the Catholic Church owning great riches...”
False. Some nobles wanted to protect Wycliffe. Others not. In any case you are undercutting your usual arguments.
“No, he went into hiding AFTER his translation of the New Testament.”
No, he was already a heretic and already went to the continent in 1524.
“ He went abroad in 1524/25, since translating it without permission in England would lead to his death - it had been outlawed in 1408.”
False. All that was required was a permit and there was not death sentence for translating without one. You are essentially making things up out of thin air.
“While his travels aren’t entirely known, he seems to have gone into hiding about the time his first edition of the NT was published.”
He already went to the continent in 1524 – before his NT was published.
“Psalters are small parts of the Bible, and I have repeatedly posted on this thread that the translating was done by Wycliffe and his followers.”
No. You have said it was Wycliffe. Perhaps on a rare occasion you said it was his sycophants. One is not the same as the other for starters.
“I indicated in previous posts on this thread that he probably did NOT translate the entire Bible all by himself. He was certainly aided, and a revised edition leaned heavily on work by his followers. And there was no complete translation anywhere in English for him to use as help.”
That you know of.
“Perhaps you should read about Wycliffe before blathering about him.”
I have read and written more about Wycliffe than you probably ever will. On the other hand, there’s a good chance you’ve never read a single book about him by a reputable historian.
“They most certainly were. I have a book that consists of the trials in one city of Lollards. The 1408 Oxford Constitutions made owning scripture translated in the vernacular without permission punishable by death.”
Nope. The punishment is this according to the law itself: “thenceforth, no one should translate any text of sacred Scripture, by his own authority, into the English or any other tongue, in the way of book, tract, or treatise; and that no publication of this sort, composed in the time of John Wiclif, or since, or thereafter to be composed, should be read, either in part or in whole, either in public or in private, under the pain of the greater excommunication, until such translation should be approved by the diocesan of the place; or, if the matter should require it, by a provincial council: every one who should act in contradiction to this order, to be punished as an abettor of heresy and error.” (Constit. vii. Archb. Arundel. 1408)
And, of course, no one was actually arrested, tried and executed by the state in England for translating the Bible. And certainly nothing like that could be done by the Church since it had no power to execute in any case, ever.
“Again, this is not open to dispute. The text of the Oxford Constitutions can be read. I suggest you do so.”
Already did. Here’s the punishment: “greater excommunication,until such translation should be approved by the diocesan of the place; or, if the matter should require it, by a provincial council”
“Try reading here:”
Coulton. Sorry, read his works in grad school. Found him to often be in error.
“The digitization is lacking, but it addresses More’s error about Wycliffe.”
No, actually it addresses Coulton’s errors regarding More.
“What they knew of were translations by Wycliffe.”
Prove it.
“ Again, no translation of the entire Bible or entire New Testament into English has been found dating before Wycliffe, or apart from him prior to Tyndale.”
Prove none existed. You can’t. Prove what they had is now known about today. You can’t.
“If you wish to claim they exist, then you need to find one.”
Actually I don’t. We already know numerous translations existed of parts of the Bible. We also know Protestants destroyed thousands of Catholic books in the Protestant Revolution.
“Those More mentioned by owner were all Wycliffe’s.”
Prove it. Also, when you say all of those More mentioned that means there were plenty – and no one was being executed for having one including More. Again, you’re undercutting your own posts. If possessing such a Bible – and you claim More had one – was punishable by death (another claim of yours) then why wasn’t he executed? Why weren’t any of the other people you claim More alluded to?
“None has been found or claimed to exist.”
Except by More?
“And Wycliffe wrote in the English available to him. I refuse to add Middle to all my posts. The fact remains it was a vernacular translation, meant for commoners, and also used by nobility. No other translation has ever been found.”
Which says nothing about whether or not it existed.
“Sorry, but the Catholic Church opposed vernacular translations for hundreds of years”
False. If this were true, it would be easy for you to prove it. Instead all we have is post after post of your claim and no proof of it at all. And that’s what will continue to happen too. I am willing to bet we both know why too.
“ because they feared what men would realize when they read the scriptures - that Catholic doctrine is not found in scripture, and that it frequently conflicts with scripture.”
False. There are no conflicts at all and the Church has never hidden scripture from anyone. And, as always, you offer not even a scrap of evidence for your most outlandish claims. And, again, I am willing to bet we both know why too.
“It isn’t open to debate.”
Apparently it isn’t open to being proved by you.
“It was widely taught, and many died for defying it.”
It was never taught and no one died for it either.
“If you don’t know enough about history to know that, then you need to step away from FreeRepublic and learn.”
I probably know more about history than you ever will.
“According to the British Library:”
You think so? The British Library also said this _ which you omitted of course: “Translations of the Bible into various forms of English, such as Old English, were made over the centuries, but these were hand-written copies with a very limited circulation.”
What they say about the 1408 constitutions is clearly erroneous – according to the constitutions themselves. Original documents are always more trustworthy than opinions from the British Library or anywhere else.
“Or you can read what Thomas More wrote, if you don’t mind reading 9 volumes of dishonesty.”
There’s far more accuracy in any volume from More than in your posts.