You wrote:
“No, I don’t have PhD in History. I’m a retired Electronic Warfare Officer, not a historian. However, I find your hair-splitting to be a bit silly.”
I am not hair-splitting. Gaining historical knowledge is all about precision and accuracy.
“Part of our disagreement stems from this: were Lollards killed for heretical views, or reading the scriptures in English? Since the latter was evidence of the former, I find it to be a distinction without a difference.”
Having a Bible in the vernacular was never a heresy in itself. It was an issue of discipline when the Lollards came on the scene. Now, after the constitution was issued, and everyone knew what was in it, someone who secretly held on to such Bibles must have only done it because they were heretical notes in them and they themselves were heretics. They could be put on trial, but they still could not be put on trial for heresy in itself.
“If someone who possessed a passage from scripture in English could be arrested and brought to trial, and then executed for knowing and repeating what was in scripture, then I find the idea that possessing and reading scripture in English wasn’t a death-defying act.”
We know that English Catholics had Bibles and prayer books in the vernacular (prayer books with Middle English Bible passages and prayers taken from scriptures).
“As for Wiki - argue facts, not names. I don’t have days to read all source material. If Wiki is in error, correct it & me.”
I am correcting you. Will you change your views? I doubt it.
“I realize the passage didn’t directly contradict your assertion, but used it as a lead up to what happened in 1408 and the 150 years that followed.”
You were still wrong and you used sources that were edited to make them read differently than they actually did. There’s dishonesty involved here. Whoever you used as a source online for these quotes (you didn’t actually ever read any history books on this after all, right?) was essentially dishonest. You were duped and you apparently didn’t even know it until I pointed it out.
“Fine. Did it ever happen?”
Yep.
“And what is YOUR source?”
I wish I could remember where I read about the young woman who had exactly such a writ from her ordinary. I read about it years ago. There were such documents, we still have some. Amazing that they survived not just 600 years of history, but 5 centuries of Protestant attempts to rewrite history!
Now, here is what I can easily find, and from a reputable source: Archbishop Arundel, the very man who issued the constitution in question presided over the funeral of Queen Anne in 1392 (yes, I know, it’s before the constitution, but hold on):
“Also the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas of Arundel, that now is (runs the record), preached a sermon at Westminster, whereat there were many hundred people, at the burying of Queen Anne (on whose soul God have mercy), and in his commendation of her he said that it was more joy of her than of any woman that he knew. For notwithstanding that she was an alien born she had in English all the four Gospels, with the doctors upon them. And he said that she sent them unto him, and he said that they were good and true and commended her, in that she was so great a Lady and also an alien and would study such holy, such virtuous books.” http://books.google.com/books?pg=RA1-PA129&lpg=RA1-PA129&dq=arundel+bible+lady&sig=vsm—zAQ2H8qTJqrrWQWQMpZxIc&ei=b5DnSoqAL5O8sgOY8uWqBQ&ct=result&id=2hDQCAi3oGQC&ots=Lf3Xqldq5V#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Now, remember, Wycliffe was already dead. His Bible was already being circulated in a second edition by his heretical followers. Yet, here we have Arundel publicly proclaiming his admiration and respect for a woman who read the scriptures IN ENGLISH. Already we see a serious problem with the basis of your claims.
And then there’s this from St. Thomas More:
“For as much (he writes) as it is dangerous to translate the text of Scripture out of one tongue into another, as holy St. Jerome testifieth, for as much as in translation it is hard always to keep the same sentence (i.e., sense) whole. It is, I say, for these causes at a council holden at Oxenford provided upon great pain, that no man should from thenceforth translate into the English tongue, or any other language, of his own authority, by way of book, libellus or treatise, nor no man openly, or secretly, read any such book, etc., newly made in the time of the said John Wyclif or since, etc., until such should be approved. And this is a law that so many so long have spoken of, and so few have in all this while sought to seek (or find out) whether they say the truth or no. For I trow that in this law you see nothing unreasonable. For it neither forbiddeth the translations to be read that were already well done of old before Wyclif’s days, nor damneth his because it was new, * but because it was naught; nor prohibiteth new to be made, but provideth that they shall not be read, if they be made amiss, till they be by good examination amended.” (same source as linked above, by the way).
And More would know since he was the Chancellor of England!
“Given that Wycliffe’s disciples and Tyndale both added comments, and their English translations were the only ones available in any number, what do you think happened?”
What’s that supposed to mean? What do I think happened? Here’s what I think happened: Satan tempted men of great pride to rebel against the Church and twist the scriptures to their liking. Some of those men we call Protestants.
“Correct, in so far as it goes. And those who recanted were usually given leniency. From what I’ve read, with an EWO’s library, repeat offenders were burned. In a different book, Edwards expounded at greater length, but I don’t have endless time to type in quotes for pages. Sorry.”
R-I-G-H-T.
“The link I provided points out he ‘wrote’ 5 books - the first 3 plagiarized, and the last written by an anonymous person. So he is generally credited with 5 books, although in fact he wrote 1. I provided the link with deeper detail.”
Still an error.
“Actually, I shortened the quote because it takes time to type, and I still don’t see how it changes my point in any way.”
It doesn’t change your point. It shows your point to be erroneous. Do you understand the difference between those two ideas? Or will you just say that’s hair-splitting?
“Namely, the clergy did NOT want the laity to have access to scripture.”
Which is completely false. If that were the case, then that’s what the constitution would have said. You have no evidence at all.
“Stuff your full quote where the sun doesn’t shine - the meaning is still there.”
Nope. What you claimed is not there in what you posted. That’s not hair-splitting either.
“Correct. I spent several days reading about Tyndale, and I tried to be accurate. I would also point out that he was not pursued across the Continent by Thomas More and others for believing what is stated in Ephesians, but for translating it into English and publishing it. He was tried for heresy, but he was pursued for translating and publishing. Again, it is splitting hairs to say he died for heresy, since he would not have been pursued and had agents sent out after him if he had not translated and published.”
Nope. He would have been pursued for pushing heresy - which he did in the notes of his translation. Pity too. He was a smart man, but allowed himself to be fooled by Satan.
“Please expand. I wrote what I’ve read. And it IS a horrible way to preach, since context has so much impact on meaning.”
It is not a horrible way to preach. It may not impress you, but that is hardly relevant. And again, that was not what commonly was done anyway.
“The DRV translators...”
Yes. Douay-Rheims Version.
“OK, by 1600, one could translate scripture into English.”
One could do it in 1400 too. And in 1500 too.
“No one denies that, and the King’s picked men who translated under his authority in 1604-7 were also not in danger.”
Actually they could have been if there had been a change of powers.
“What a shock - the Catholic Church no longer ran England or influenced its laws, and suddenly it was OK to translate - even with a Catholic slant.”
1) It was always OK to translated. 2) The Catholic Church never ran England.
“Wycliffe’s followers were not called “Bible Men” because they ignored scripture.”
They weren’t called Heretics because they were orthodox either. They were called Bible Men because they followed the Bible.
“They died for following the Bible, and teaching it and spreading it in English.”
Nope.
“Wycliffe was dug up and his bones burned - for heresies that are the words of scripture themselves.”
Nope. Show me where this is in the Bible: “7. That God ought to be obedient to the devil.”
You falsely claim his body was burned for this: “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” Show me where you see that here: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1382wycliffe.html
“Tyndale was tried as a heretic and killed, but he was pursued as a translator and publisher.”
Heretic. Heretical notes.
“Split hairs all you want. It echoes the Church saying they had no blood on their hands, since they tried for heresy, and then turned the victim over to civil authorities for actual death.”
No, actually it doesn’t. Again, precision is not hair-splitting.
“That might make their consciences feel better, but I doubt God or anyone with a conscience believes it.”
Your doubts are not based on anything.
“The Catholic Church fought hard to prevent Germans and English from reading scripture in their own languages.”
No. There were 14 different editions PRINTED Bibles before Luther. And those were just the printed ones! That doesn’t include all the handmade mss.
Luther, as is well known to historians, but probably complete news to you, borrowed heavily from the previous Bible for his translation. Even Protestants admit these facts:
According to the latest investigations, fourteen printed editions of the whole Bible in the Middle High German dialect, and three in the Low German, have been identified. Panzer already knew fourteen; see his Gesch. der nürnbergischen Ausgaben der Bibel, Nürnberg, 1778, p. 74.
The first four, in large folio, appeared without date and place of publication, but were probably printed: 1, at Strassburg, by Heinrich Eggestein, about or before 1466 (the falsely so-called Mainzer Bibel of 1462); 2, at Strassburg, by Johann Mentelin, 1466 (?); 3, at Augsburg, by Jodocus Pflanzmann, or Tyner, 1470 (?); 4, at Nürnberg, by Sensenschmidt and Frissner, in 2 vols., 408 and 104 leaves, 1470-73 (?). The others are located, and from the seventh on also dated, viz.: 5, Augsburg, by Günther Zainer, 2 vols., probably between 1473-1475. 6, Augsburg, by the same, dated 1477 (Stevens says, 1475?). 7, The third Augsburg edition, by Günther Zainer, or Anton Sorg, 1477, 2 vols., 321 and 332 leaves, fol., printed in double columns; the first German Bible with a date. 8, The fourth Augsburg edition, by A. Sorg, 1480, folio. 9, Nürnberg, by Anton Koburger (also spelled Koberger), 1483. 10, Strassburg, by Johann Gruninger, 1485. 11 and 12, The fifth and sixth Augsburg editions, in small fol., by Hans Schönsperger, 1487 and 1490. 13, The seventh Augsburg edition, by Hans Otmar, 1507, small folio. 14, The eighth Augsburg edition, by Silvan Otmar, 1518, small folio.
The Low Dutch Bibles were printed: 1, at Cologne, in large folio, double columns, probably 1480. The unknown editor speaks of previous editions and his own improvements. Stevens (Nos. 653 and 654) mentions two copies of the O. T. in Dutch, printed at Delf, 1477, 2 vols. fol. 2, At Lübeck, 1491 (not 1494), 2 vols. fol. with large woodcuts. 3, At Halberstadt, 1522.
Comp. Kehrein (I.c.), Krafft (l.c., pp. 4, 5), and Henry Stevens, The Bibles in the Caxton Exhibition, London, 1878. Stevens gives the full titles with descriptions, pp. 45 sqq., nos. 620 sqq.
Several of these Bibles, including the Koburger and those of Cologne and Halberstadt, are in the possession of the Union Theol. Seminary, New York. I examined them. They are ornamented by woodcuts, beginning with a picture of God creating the world, and forming Eve from the rib of Adam in Paradise. Several of them have Jerome’s preface (De omnibus divinae historiae libris, Ep. ad Paulinum), the oldest with the remark: “Da hebet an die epistel des heiligen priesters sant Jeronimi zu Paulinum von allen gottlichen büchern der hystory. Das erst capitel.”
Dr. Krafft illustrates the dependence of Luther on the earlier version by several examples (pp. 13-18). The following is from the Sermon on the Mount, Matt. 5:21-27:—
http://www.bible-researcher.com/luther02.html
“It lost, thank GOD! - but it killed a lot of folks before admitting defeat!”
No, you’ve lost...and you’re still lost.
“There’s dishonesty involved here. Whoever you used as a source online for these quotes (you didn’t actually ever read any history books on this after all, right?) was essentially dishonest. You were duped and you apparently didn’t even know it until I pointed it out.”
Wrong as usual. Yes, I read history books. I took the parts of the quotes that I bothered to hand type in, but there was no intent to deceive, nor did you additional information change my point. Be careful about calling someone a liar.
“Now, after the constitution was issued, and everyone knew what was in it, someone who secretly held on to such Bibles must have only done it because they were heretical notes in them and they themselves were heretics.”
Or maybe they wanted to read God’s Word, which was NOT being published, distributed or tolerated in the hands of Catholic laity in 1300-1600 England. It was the Catholic Church that stopped up scripture, as evidenced by the fact that there were not thousands of English Catholic-approved Bibles published - or hundreds.
There WERE a handful of translations before Wycliffe. There were translations going back as far as Bede, but no distribution of them. Evidence of this is the fact that when Wycliffe & Tyndale started translating and publishing, the demand was HUGE - even though it was dangerous to the point of death.
Now, if the Catholic Church was making the Bible available in English, why were people willing to risk death to get a copy of Wycliffe’s and later Tyndale’s translations? For the notes? They could buy Tyndale’s books if they wanted his thoughts - it was scripture that they hungered for and did not get from the Catholic Church.
You cite More: “...For it neither forbiddeth the translations to be read that were already well done of old before Wyclif’s days, nor damneth his because it was new, * but because it was naught; nor prohibiteth new to be made, but provideth that they shall not be read, if they be made amiss, till they be by good examination amended.”
True, but what good is a translation with no distribution? And those translations had been made hundreds of years earlier...the language had changed.
Wiki has a good summary here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_English_Bible#Old_English_translations
An Anglo-Saxon translation from 700 AD wasn’t much help in 1375. Even Wycliffe’s translation was older and more difficult than Tyndales, just 150 years later:
“1 The bigynnyng of the gospel of Jhesu Crist, the sone of God.2 As it is writun in Ysaie, the prophete, Lo! Y sende myn aungel bifor thi face, that schal make thi weie redi bifor thee. 3 The vois of a crier in desert, Make ye redi the weie of the Lord, make ye hise paththis riyt. 4 Joon was in desert baptisynge, and prechynge the baptym of penaunce, in to remissioun of synnes. 5 And al the cuntre of Judee wente out to hym, and alle men of Jerusalem; and thei weren baptisid of hym in the flom Jordan, `and knoulechiden her synnes. 6 And Joon was clothid with heeris of camels, and a girdil of skyn was about hise leendis; and he ete hony soukis, and wilde hony, and prechide, 7 and seide, A stronger than Y schal come aftir me, and Y am not worthi to knele doun, and vnlace his schoone.”
http://www.sbible.boom.ru/wyc/mar1.htm
You write: “It doesn’t change your point. It shows your point to be erroneous.”
Here is the original part I posted, to show “the Holy Catholic Church COULD have sponsored a translation, but it did not.”
“...wrote that Wycliffe’s work made scriptue [sic] “more open to the laity, and even women who were able to read, than formerly it had even been to the scholarly and most learned of the clergy...this precious gem of the clergy has been turned into the sport of the laity”.
You say that is refuted by the quote: ““And so the Gospel pearl is thrown before swine and trodden under foot and that which used to be so dear to both clergy and laity has become a joke, and this precious gem of the clergy has been turned into the sport of the laity, so that what used to be the highest gift of the clergy and the learned members of the Church has become common to the laity.”
You neglect the first part of my quote - that it made the scripture more accessible, and repeat the second part, which is that what had been “the highest gift of the clergy and the learned members of the Church” was now “common to the laity”.
Since it essentially REPEATS my point, it is NOT a refutation. It says what I said - that Wycliffe’s translation, awkward as it was, made it more accessible to the laity, and that the Church men didn’t like it, calling the common man “swine”!
You write: “He would have been pursued for pushing heresy...”
Actually, they had enough ‘heretics’ living in England, that they didn’t need to go to the Continent to pursue them. And since More wrote several pieces attacking Tyndale’s translation, and Tyndale responded vigorously, you idea that More was pursuing him for heretical notes seems a bit silly to me. In 1529 & 1532, More published books attacking Tyndale’s translation...but he was pursued overseas for heresy, while there were thousands well within reach?
Perhaps your love of church is influencing you analysis of history. Perhaps. I’ll let anyone reading our discussion decide for themselves!
You say one could translate scripture into English in 1400 or 1500...which is a half truth. You could, IF you could get church or state to approve of you effort. Since no approval was forthcoming, no translations were legal.
And yes, the Catholic Church had enormous influence over the secular governments. The idea of digging up Wycliffe’s bones and burning them came from Rome, not London. If you really have a PhD in Medieval History, and doubt the Church’s enormous influence in secular decisions, then your studies were, at the least, incomplete.
Wycliffe did not teach “God ought to be obedient to the devil.” That says more about the dishonesty of the Pope than a believable charge against Wycliffe.
Concerning Luther’s translation, you write: “No. There were 14 different editions PRINTED Bibles before Luther. And those were just the printed ones! That doesn’t include all the handmade mss.”
Correct. from your loved Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Bible_translations#Pre-Lutheran_German_Bibles
And yet Luther’s sold...”The fact that the new Bible was printed in the vernacular allowed it to spread rapidly as it could be read by all. Hans Lufft, a renowned Bible printer in Wittenberg printed over one hundred thousand copies between 1534 and 1574 which went on to be read by millions.”
Odd, isn’t it. The Catholic Church with all its resources and influence couldn’t produce translations in German and English that sold, while heretics - one of whom was kept on the run - could sell them by the thousands, or hundred thousand. But as a Doctor of Medieval History, that doesn’t seem to interest you! Why?
Why is it that heretics could get scripture in the hands of the masses, while the Catholic Church could not? But I’m just a retired military officer - who am I to ask?
This is why I call your learned exposition hogwash...that the Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit and the Vicar of Christ, could not get scripture in the hands of the common people, although you seem to think they WANTED to, while the heretics did. It seems Luther and Tyndale did what the Vicar of Christ could not...and the Vicar’s follower vladimir998 can dance around, but not explain why heretics accomplished what the Vicar of Christ could not.
Unless, of course, the VofC didn’t really WANT the common folks to read scripture - an idea well attested to by history and common sense!