Posted on 05/02/2008 2:09:51 PM PDT by Augustinian monk
During the Middle Ages prohibitions of books were far more numerous than in ancient times. Their history is chiefly connected with the names of medieval heretics like Berengarius of Tours, Abelard, John Wyclif, and John Hus. However, especially in the thirteenth and fourteen century, there were also issued prohibitions against various kinds of superstition writings, among them the Talmud and other Jewish books. In this period also, the first decrees about the reading of various translations of the Bible were called forth by the abuses of the Waldenses and Albigensians. What these decrees (e.g., of the synod of Toulouse in 1129, Tarragona in 1234, Oxford in 1408) aimed at was the restriction of Bible-reading in the vernacular.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03519d.htm
It is small wonder that the ecclesiastical authorities soon convened in the Synod of Oxford (1408) and forbade the publication and reading of unauthorized vernacular versions of the Scriptures, restricting the permission to read the Bible in the vernacular to versions approved by the ordinary of the place, or, if the case so require, by the provincial council.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm#english
As for the pre-Wyclif translations, none were a complete Bible.
Wyclif's was the first translation of the entire Bible.
Tyndales was the first printed English Bible.
(3) Printed English Bibles We are now entering the period of printed English Scriptures. France, Spain, Italy, Bohemia, and Holland possessed the Bible in the vernacular before the accession of Henry VIII; in Germany the Scriptures were printed in 1466, and seventeen editions had left the press before the apostasy of Luther. No part of the English Bible was printed before 1525, no complete Bible before 1535, and none in England before 1538.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm#english
Those are the facts, according to your own Roman Catholic sources.
I think some people don't get the distinction between a fact and an interpretation of a fact, and consequently fall into seeing some facts which confirm their prejudice and take it for proof.
Turn over any rock and skim any ofo the anti-Cahotlic posts and the constants are ignorance (either willful or inadvertent), a misconstruction of the facts, and a contempt for careful and deliberate reasoning.
Tyndale’s Heresy
The Real Story of the ‘Father of the English Bible’
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0212fea3.asp
By Matthew A.C. Newsome
This Rock
Volume 13, Number 10
December 2002
The new edition of the New International Version (NIV) Bible came out this year. Why is it newsworthy? Because this is the “Inclusive Language Edition,” and conservative Protestants everywhere are up in arms. I read of the NIV Inclusive Language Edition while visiting family in Greenville, South Carolina. On Sunday, February 24, 2002, the Greenville News ran an article by Deb Reichardson-Moore. She wrote that the business of biblical translation can be dangerous, citing as evidence William Tyndale, whom she wrote “was burned at the stake for the heresy of translating the Greek New Testament into English in 1525.” She reported that today he’s known as “the father of the English Bible.”
Phrasing it this way makes it sound as if the heresy Tyndale was condemned for was the act of translating the Bible into English. This is a common mistake and often repeated. In fact, when doing a bit of research for this article, I came across several web sites on Tyndale that said just this. One stated, “Translating the Bible was considered a heresy” (ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/geoff_whiley/tyndale.htm). Another proclaimed that in 1408 a law was enacted that forbade the translation of the Bible into English and also made reading the Bible illegal (britannia.com/bios/tyndale.html).
Of course, anyone familiar with the history of the Catholic Church, which for 2,000 years has been preserving and protecting the Word of God, recognizes how ludicrous this is. It was is only by the authority of the Catholic Church, which collected the various books of Scripture in the fourth century, that we have a Christian Bible at all. And it is only because of the Church that the Bible survived and was taught for the many centuries before the printing press made it widely available. All Christians everywhere owe it a great debt for that.
So what was the real reason William Tyndale was condemned? Was translating the Bible into English actually illegal? The answer is no. The law that was passed in 1408 was in reaction to another infamous translator, John Wycliff. Wycliff had produced a translation of the Bible that was corrupt and full of heresy. It was not an accurate rendering of sacred Scripture.
Both the Church and the secular authorities condemned it and did their best to prevent it from being used to teach false doctrine and morals. Because of the scandal it caused, the Synod of Oxford passed a law in 1408 that prevented any unauthorized translation of the Bible into English and also forbade the reading of such unauthorized translations.
It is a fact usually ignored by Protestant historians that many English versions of the Scriptures existed before Wycliff, and these were authorized and perfectly legal (see Where We Got the Bible by Henry Graham, chapter 11, “Vernacular Scriptures Before Wycliff”). Also legal would be any future authorized translations. And certainly reading these translations was not only legal but also encouraged. All this law did was to prevent any private individual from publishing his own translation of Scripture without the approval of the Church.
Which, as it turns out, is just what William Tyndale did. Tyndale was an English priest of no great fame who desperately desired to make his own English translation of the Bible. The Church denied him for several reasons.
First, it saw no real need for a new English translation of the Scriptures at this time. In fact, booksellers were having a hard time selling the print editions of the Bible that they already had. Sumptuary laws had to be enacted to force people into buying them.
Second, we must remember that this was a time of great strife and confusion for the Church in Europe. The Reformation had turned the continent into a very volatile place. So far, England had managed to remain relatively unscathed, and the Church wanted to keep it that way. It was thought that adding a new English translation at this time would only add confusion and distraction where focus was needed.
Lastly, if the Church had decided to provide a new English translation of Scripture, Tyndale would not have been the man chosen to do it. He was known as only a mediocre scholar and had gained a reputation as a priest of unorthodox opinions and a violent temper. He was infamous for insulting the clergy, from the pope down to the friars and monks, and had a genuine contempt for Church authority. In fact, he was first tried for heresy in 1522, three years before his translation of the New Testament was printed. His own bishop in London would not support him in this cause.
Finding no support for his translation from his bishop, he left England and came to Worms, where he fell under the influence of Martin Luther. There in 1525 he produced a translation of the New Testament that was swarming with textual corruption. He willfully mistranslated entire passages of Sacred Scripture in order to condemn orthodox Catholic doctrine and support the new Lutheran ideas. The Bishop of London claimed that he could count over 2,000 errors in the volume (and this was just the New Testament).
And we must remember that this was not merely a translation of Scripture. His text included a prologue and notes that were so full of contempt for the Catholic Church and the clergy that no one could mistake his obvious agenda and prejudice. Did the Catholic Church condemn this version of the Bible? Of course it did.
The secular authorities condemned it as well. Anglicans are among the many today who laud Tyndale as the “father of the English Bible.” But it was their own founder, King Henry VIII, who in 1531 declared that “the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people.”
So troublesome did Tyndale’s Bible prove to be that in 1543—after his break with Rome—Henry again decreed that “all manner of books of the Old and New Testament in English, being of the crafty, false, and untrue translation of Tyndale . . . shall be clearly and utterly abolished, extinguished, and forbidden to be kept or used in this realm.”
Ultimately, it was the secular authorities that proved to be the end for Tyndale. He was arrested and tried (and sentenced to die) in the court of the Holy Roman Emperor in 1536. His translation of the Bible was heretical because it contained heretical ideas—not because the act of translation was heretical in and of itself. In fact, the Catholic Church would produce a translation of the Bible into English a few years later (The Douay-Reims version, whose New Testament was released in 1582 and whose Old Testament was released in 1609).
When discussing the history of Biblical translations, it is very common for people to toss around names like Tyndale and Wycliff. But the full story is seldom given. This present case of a gender-inclusive edition of the Bible is a wonderful opportunity for Fundamentalists to reflect and realize that the reason they don’t approve of this new translation is the same reason that the Catholic Church did not approve of Tyndale’s or Wycliff’s. These are corrupt translations, made with an agenda, and not accurate renderings of sacred Scripture.
And here at least Fundamentalists and Catholics are in ready agreement: Don’t mess with the Word of God.
This of cause implies that the Ru'ach HaKodesh is impotent
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
and can not preserve and protect His Word
No ,Dear friend.
God DID protect His word through His Church.
It is those who broke from it who have translated it incorrectly in error and interpret to suit their own fancy that is the work of men
I wish you a Blessed day
Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating Ekklesia as congregation and not as "church",
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
thus undercutting the corporate authority of both the "church" of Rome and the "church" of England.
It is the works mentality. The difference between imputed righteousness (given through no deeds/works of the recipient) and infused righteousness (earned through cooperation and deeds/works).
Scripture is very clear that we are to believe The Gospel having Faith in Jesus alone and that this is the works that God has laid out for us. All else will follow.
John 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."
I apologize for the carelessly hostile tone of the post to which this is a response. God still has some work to do in me yet, I suppose.
The English sovereigns always fought to maintain the rights of Kings vs. the claims of the Popes to have the power to appoint leaders and investiture in the church. The church of Rome was after all more of a political organ than religious during the dark ages. The power it wielded was the fear of excommunication and it's spurious claims to control and individual's salvation. I'm sure this is a major factor in not wanting Bibles produced in the vernacular.
Not necessarily. we have ample Evidence in both Testaments that the holy Spirit uses human type personnel to do a lot of what He wants done.
Even we Papists, despite what people say of us, "get" that if we do one single teeny-tiny good thing it is God doing it in us.
(And every time I try to blame Him for the bad stuff I do, He laughs at me. It is SEW not FAAY-ur!)
Very informative posts, thank you.
I was going to mention Wycliff. One thing that jumps out about him was his belief in Sola Scriptura well before the Reformation. Also, I believe the Albigeneses held to Sola Scriptura and their principal sin was refusing to submit to the Roman Pontiff.
He laughs at me. It is SEW not FAAY-ur!)
Amen to that !
http://extra.shu.ac.uk/emls/iemls/work/chapters/heresy2.html#BT1
Do a word study in the LXX for Ekklesia it begins in Deuteronomy 4:10.
Those who have the power to murder with whom they disagree: "write history".
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
NAsbU Deuteronomy 4:10 "Remember the day you stood before the LORD your God
at Horeb, when the LORD said to me, 'Assemble the people to Me, that I may let
them hear My words so they may learn to fear Me all the days they live on
the earth, and that they may teach their children.'
Amen, my fellow Missourian! :)
No disagreement from Rome either, despite what others say of us.
Let me help you with the next sentence of your carefully sculpted post from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“A general prohibition was never in existence.”
Ping to 1,195 & 1187
It seesm from your postscript that you consider the Hebrew more authentic or useful than a translation.
Wouldn’t the safest means of obeying Deuteronomy then be reading it strictly in Hebrew?
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.