Posted on 01/29/2010 4:41:16 PM PST by NYer
Did Martin Luther save the bible from the Roman Catholic Church? Was John Wycliff the first to translate the Bible into the English language in 1382 so the regular-Joe could read the Bible too?
Many people answer yes to these questions. The same people also commonly accuse the Catholic Church of things like “hiding the Bible from the people.” And not letting the laity read the Bible for themselves in fear that the people would learn how wickedly warped and un-biblical the teachings of the Catholic Church truly were. So, naturally, for these reasons the Catholic Church kept Bibles locked up, hard to find and in languages nobody could understand.
This absolutely ridiculous, academically inept, historically false and blatantly ignorant point of view oozes with irony. Here are just a few reasons why:
1) Throughout much of Church history, if you could read, you could read Latin. The Church translated the Bible into Latin in the first few centuries of its inception so that all who could read would be able to do so.
2) The Church distributed the Bible in every country it was in and in the common language of the people from the 7th down to the 14th century and beyond.
3) “626 editions of the Bible, in which 198 were in the language of the laity, had issued from the press, with the sanction and at the instance of the Church, in the countries where she reigned supreme, before the first Protestant version of the scriptures was sent forth into the world.” (Where We Got The Bible)
4) There were 27 versions of the Bible in the German language before Martin Luther’s version came out.
5) It was almost solely in those countries which have remained most Catholic that popular versions of the Bible had been published; while it was precisely Protestant countries (like England, Scotland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway) that no bible existed when they embraced Protestantism (Dublin Review - Oct 1837). So there is no evidence that access to a Bible in the vernacular caused people to become more protestant. If anything, it made them become more Catholic. It was the spread of such “traditions of men” as private Judgment and Sola Scriptura which caused the spread of Protestantism and further division within the Body of Christ.
The reasons many people still didn’t have access to a Bible was not because of the Catholic Church (The Catholic Church supported access to it). One of the main reasons was the high cost and labor to produce and/or obtain one. That changed drastically with the printing press, of course.
So why then did the Catholic Church reject and forbid the use of protestant “bibles” such as the one published by John Wycliff? It was not because they were in English or another vernacular. It was not because they were being made available to the laity. It was because they were corrupt versions of the Bible. They were bad translations. And were often being used to spread false doctrine. It’s that simple.
If the Catholic Church had wanted to destroy or alter the Bible, it could have done so at just about any time in its long history. The Catholic Church is the reason we even have the Bible today. It is the institution that protected and preserved it. It would have been easy for those in the Church to destroy original documents and come up with something else if they didn’t like what the Bible taught. But they didn’t do that because of their love for Scripture and genuine desire to share it with the entire world.
If you can read, thank a teacher. If you can read a Bible, thank the Catholic Church.
Is the Geneva Bible OK?
Brigham Young called it a fraud, however, and the mormons don't use it to this day.
You serious?
Absolutely.
3) “626 editions of the Bible, in which 198 were in the language of the laity, had issued from the press, with the sanction and at the instance of the Church, in the countries where she reigned supreme, before the first Protestant version of the scriptures was sent forth into the world.” (Where We Got The Bible)
As a good Catholic, I'd like to see the bibliography for this. If such bibles exist they must have been incredibly expensive.
|
What about the Statute of Valencia that made it illegal for anyone not authorized by The Church to have a copy of the Bible?
More delusional thinking promulgated by the cult of Rome. Amazing that the sheeple listen.
I wish you would have made this a caucus thread.
You already have one non Christian acting person on it.
This is a very disturbing paragraph. I know the history and am aware of what happened to the Oxford educated John Wycliffe, a Doctor of Divinity at Oxford in fact, at the hands of Catholic authorities, and why.
It's a particularly ugly episode that kicked off an ugly era, that cannot be so easily breezed past, no matter how disconcerting it may be for those inclined to rationalize. Exhuming his remains, burning them and dumping them in the Thames? Why didn't they go all out and put his corpse on trial, as was done with Pope Formosus? The mind boggles, it's all just too bizarre.
Another point that goes begging with this, is just how Wycliffe's Bible was:
- Corrupt
- A bad translation
- False doctrine.
Would anyone care to elaborate? My apologies for being so blunt, but this author is quite the bomb thrower, with little to back up his inflammatory claims.
I don’t.
***So why then did the Catholic Church reject and forbid the use of protestant “bibles” such as the one published by John Wycliff? It was not because they were in English or another vernacular. It was not because they were being made available to the laity. It was because they were corrupt versions of the Bible. They were bad translations. And were often being used to spread false doctrine. It’s that simple.***
The Protestant bibles came from the Greek translation by Eurasmus a Catholic. this is the same Eurasmus who withstood Luther.
From this web site..
http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/sorenson-ch10-1.html
Critics of Erasmus have been quick to point out that he dedicated his first edition of his Greek New Testament to Pope Leo X. However, there is more to that than meets the eye. The long established Catholic position was that the Latin Vulgate was the official church Bible. There was a hostility toward anything that threatened that primacy. Erasmus knew that and he knew the opposition his Greek text would receive. Therefore, without the pope even knowing it, he dedicated it to him and at the same time had his friend in Rome, Bombasius, obtain formal approval of his publication because it had been dedicated to the pope. Thus, when the Catholic establishment in central Europe began to vehemently attack his work, Erasmus produced the approval of the pope. Erasmus was not a separatist, but he was shrewd.
From the Translators to the Readers, 1611 KJV preface...
The Unwillingness of Our Chief Adversaries, that the Scriptures Should Be Divulged in the Mother Tongue, etc.
Now the Church of Rome would seem at the length to bear a motherly affection towards her children, and to allow them the Scriptures in their mother tongue: but indeed it is a gift, not deserving to be called a gift, an unprofitable gift: they must first get a licence in writing before they may use them, and to get that, they must approve themselves to their Confessor, that is, to be such as are, if not frozen in the dregs, yet soured with the leaven of their superstition.
Howbeit, it seemed too much to Clement the Eighth that there should be any Licence granted to have them in the vulgar tongue, and therefore he overruleth and frustrateth the grant of Pius the Fourth.
So much are they afraid of the light of the Scripture, (Lucifugae Scripturarum, as Tertulian speaketh) that they will not trust the people with it, no not as it is set forth by their own sworn men, no not with the Licence of their own Bishops and Inquisitors.
Yea, so unwilling they are to communicate the Scriptures to the people’s understanding in any sort, that they are not ashamed to confess, that we forced them to translate it into English against their wills.
This seemeth to argue a bad cause, or a bad conscience, or both. Sure we are, that it is not he that hath good gold, that is afraid to bring it to the touchstone, but he that hath the counterfeit; neither is it the true man that shunneth the light, but the malefactor, lest his deeds should be reproved [John 3:20]: neither is it the plain-dealing Merchant that is unwilling to have the weights, or the meteyard brought in place, but he that useth deceit. But we will let them alone for this fault, and return to translation.
...
Was their translation good before? Why do they now mend it? Was it not good? Why then was it obtruded to {forced upon} the people? Yea, why did the Catholics (meaning Popish Romanists) always go in jeopardy, for refusing to go to hear it? Nay, if it must be translated into English, Catholics are fittest to do it. They have learning, and they know when a thing is well, they can manum de tabulâ.
§ 13 [An answer to the imputations of our adversaries.]
• 1 Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God.
• 2 As the King’s Speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s Speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.
.....
• 15 Surely, as the Apostle reasoneth to the Hebrews, [Heb.7:11, & 8:7] that if the former Law and Testament had been sufficient, there had been no need of the latter: so we may say, that if the old vulgar had been at all points allowable, to small purpose had labour and charges been undergone about framing of a new.
• 16 If they say, it was one Pope’s private opinion, and that he consulted only himself; then we are able to go further with them, and to aver, that more of their chief men of all sorts, even their own Trent champions, Paiva and Vega, and their own inquisitors, Hieronymus ab Oleastro, and their own bishop Isodorus Clarius, and their own cardinal Thomas à Vio Caietan, do either make new translations themselves, or follow new ones of other men’s making, or note the vulgar interpreter for halting, none of them fear to dissent from him, nor yet to except against him.
• 17 And call they this an uniform tenor of text and judgement about the text, so many of their worthies disclaiming the now received conceit?
• 18 Nay, we will yet come nearer the quick: doth not their Paris edition differ from the Lovaine, and Hentenius’s from them both, and yet all of them allowed by authority?
• 19 Nay, doth not Sixtus Quintus [Sixtus V. præfat. fixa Bibliis.] confess that certain Catholics (he meaneth certain of his own side) were in such a humour of translating the Scriptures into Latin, that Satan taking occasion by them, though they thought of no such matter, did strive what he could, out of so uncertain and manifold a variety of translations, so to mingle all things, that nothing might seem to be left certain and firm in them, etc.?
• 20 Nay, further, did not the same Sixtus ordain by an inviolable decree, and that with the counsel and consent of his cardinals, that the Latin edition of the Old and New Testament, which the Council of Trent would have to be authentic, is the same without controversy which he then set forth, being diligently corrected and printed in the printing-house of Vatican? Thus Sixtus in his preface before his Bible.
• 21 And yet Clement the Eighth his immediate successor, publisheth another edition of the Bible, containing in it infinite differences from that of Sixtus, (and many of them weighty and material) and yet this must be authentic by all means.
This is such gross historical revisionism as to be embarrassing!
“1) Throughout much of Church history, if you could read, you could read Latin. The Church translated the Bible into Latin in the first few centuries of its inception so that all who could read would be able to do so.”
Not true. In England, for example, there were folks reading Old English from 600 AD thru 1000 AD. Otherwise, why would Bede have translated it into Old English (735 AD)? And King Alfred had a translation done around 900 AD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English_Bible_translations
2) The Church distributed the Bible in every country it was in and in the common language of the people from the 7th down to the 14th century and beyond.
Not true. In England, for example, some translations were made, but they were for the elite, not the commoners. The Catholic Church, to put a good spin on it, didn’t want commoners reading scripture apart from ‘sacred tradition’. The problem wasn’t lack of desire from people, nor lack of ability, but fear of what scripture might do if read apart from the Catholic Church.
Thus, when Tyndale made his translation, he answered the objections of the Catholic Church and Sir Thomas More thus:
Comfort to Persecuted Bible Readers . . .
Excerpts from William Tyndale’s Introduction to The Obedience of a Christian Man - 2nd October 1528
Let it not make thee despair, neither yet discourage thee, O reader, that it is forbidden thee in pain of life and goods, or that it is made breaking of the king’s peace, or treason unto his highness, to read the Word of thy soul’s health; … for if God be on our side, what matter maketh it who be against us, be they bishops, cardinals, popes …
Five Objections: Answered
1. They tell you that Scripture ought not to be in the mother tongue, but that is only because they fear the light, and desire to lead you blindfold and in captivity…
2. They say that Scripture needs a pure and quiet mind, and that laymen are too cumbered with worldly business to understand it. This weapon strikes themselves: for who is so tangled with worldly matters as the prelates?
3. They say that laymen would interpret it each after his own way. Why then do the curates not teach the people the right way? The Scripture would be a basis for such teaching and a test of it. At present their lives and their teaching are so contrary that the people do not believe them, even when they preach truth…
4. They say our tongue is too rude. It is not so. Greek and Hebrew go more easily into English than into Latin. Has not God made the English tongue as well as others? They suffer you to read in English of Robin Hood, Bevis of Hampton, Hercules, Troilus, and a thousand ribald or filthy tales. It is only the Scripture that is forbidden. It is therefore clearer than the sun that this forbiddal is not “for love of your souls, which they care for as the fox doth for the geese.”
5. They say we need doctors to interpret Scripture [because] it is so hard… There are errors even in Origen and Augustine; how can we test them save by the Scripture?… We do not wish to abolish teaching and to make every man his own master, but if the curates will not teach the gospel, the layman must have the Scripture, and read it for himself, taking God for his teacher.
“3) “626 editions of the Bible, in which 198 were in the language of the laity, had issued from the press, with the sanction and at the instance of the Church, in the countries where she reigned supreme, before the first Protestant version of the scriptures was sent forth into the world.” (Where We Got The Bible)” / “4) There were 27 versions of the Bible in the German language before Martin Luther’s version came out.”
An edition too expensive and too difficult for a commoner to read didn’t help. Consider this - in the 40 years after Luther’s translation, it sold over 100,000 copies!
“Although Luther was not the first to attempt this translation, his was superior to all its predecessors. Previous translations contained poor German and were that of Vulgate, (translations of translations) rather than a direct translation to German text.[12] Luther sought to get as close to the original text as possible but at the same time, his translation was guided by how people spoke in the home, on the street and in the marketplace.[14] Luther combined his faithfulness to the language spoken by the common people to produce a work which the common man could relate to.[15] This aspect of Luther’s creation led German writers such as Goethe and Nietzsche to thoroughly praise Luther’s Bible.[16] 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.[17] Luther’s Bible was virtually present in every German Protestant’s home, and there can be no doubts regarding the vast biblical knowledge attained by the German common masses.[18] As a testament to the vast influence of Luther’s Bible, he even had large print Bibles made for those who had failing eyesight.[16] German humanist Johann Cochlaeus depicted this notion perfectly as he complained that
Luther’s New Testament was so much multiplied and spread by printers that even tailors and shoemakers, yea, even women and ignorant persons who had accepted this new Lutheran gospel, and could read a little German, studied it with the greatest avidity as the fountain of all truth. Some committed it to memory, and carried it about in their bosom. In a few months such people deemed themselves so learned that they were not ashamed to dispute about faith and the gospel not only with Catholic laymen, but even with priests and monks and doctors of divinity.”[19]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible
“5) It was almost solely in those countries which have remained most Catholic that popular versions of the Bible had been published; while it was precisely Protestant countries (like England, Scotland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway) that no bible existed when they embraced Protestantism (Dublin Review - Oct 1837). So there is no evidence that access to a Bible in the vernacular caused people to become more protestant. If anything, it made them become more Catholic.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not hardly. England started to swing Protestant before there were Protestants, when Wycliffe and friends translated and distributed scripture. Charged with heresy, they thought their best defense was the word of God. That was in the late 1300s, when Wycliffe’s “Bible Men” traveled the land and read scripture to the common people. It was in reaction to this that, at the prompting of the Catholic Church, England banned any unapproved bibles...and that included Wycliffe’s.
“Wyclif’s Bible is the name now given to a group of Bible translations into Middle English that were made under the direction of, or at the instigation of, John Wycliffe. They appeared over a period from approximately 1382 to 1395.[1] These Bible translations were the chief inspiration and chief cause of the Lollard movement, a pre-Reformation movement that rejected many of the distinctive teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. In the early Middle Ages, most Christian people encountered the Bible only in the form of oral versions of scriptures, verses and homilies in Latin (other sources were mystery plays, usually conducted in the vernacular, and popular iconography). Though relatively few people could read at this time, Wycliffe’s idea was to translate the Bible into the vernacular.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyclif%27s_Bible
I’ve cited what Luther’s translation, into the common tongue instead of high German - had on Germany. Tyndale also had a tremendous impact. Copies had to be smuggled in at risk of life, but they were...and in large numbers. Thomas More didn’t write 750,000 words attacking Tyndale because it was fun.
More’s attack’s were also dishonest. For example, he objected to using elder instead of bishop, and congregation instead of church - yet both were more accurate to the Greek in Tyndale’s. Also, he strongly objects to replacing “Do penance” with the accurate “Repent”.
Tyndale was executed for heresy, since executing him for translating the Bible would have required extraditing him to England, where he might be let free. Since heresy was a crime everywhere under Charles V, and since it was heresy to say we are saved by grace thru faith, it was easy to execute Tyndale for heresy.
The copies of scripture hand made of Wycliffe’s and mass produced by Tyndale had enormous impact on England becoming Protestant. Luther’s translation of scripture had enormous impact on Germany becoming Protestant.
As for Catholic Spain, read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_translations_of_the_Bible
The Catholic Church fought hard to suppress common language translations. When possible, it executed those who translated or distributed them.
Tyndale’s translation was excellent. He worked the New Testament himself, and roughly 90% of the KJV NT is found in Tyndale’s.
The Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible was revised in 1750, and the text used by Catholics now - the Challoner revision - was largely taken from the KJV, with Catholic doctrine inserted.
The claim of “mistranslations” is made regarding Tyndale, too. I’ve always been amused at the inability of anyone to provide the definitive meaning of “azazel,” if scapegoat isn’t it.
You wrote:
“What about the Statute of Valencia that made it illegal for anyone not authorized by The Church to have a copy of the Bible?”
Apparently there was no such statute. First of all, Church laws are not called statutes. Second, the anti-Catholics who claim that this existed always say it was issued at a time when Valencia was actually controlled by Muslims. No such council of Valencia took place at that time. Also, any canon passed by the Church in Spain would only effect Catholics in Spain.
Most anti-Catholics believe whatever anti-Catholic nonsense they read. Thus, when they discovered the supposed Council of Valencia in Lorraine Boettner notoriously bad anti-Catholic book, Roman Catholicism, they blindly believe it:
Found it right here in the Library at Catholic Answers.
From the Catholic Answers’ forum:
Item: “Bible forbidden to laymen, placed on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Council of Valencia . . . [A.D.] 1229.”
This looks rather damaging, but Boettner has his history completely wrong. The first thing to note is that the Index of Forbidden Books was established in 1559, so a council held in 1229 could hardly have listed a book on it.
The second point is that there apparently has never been any Church council in Valencia, Spain. If there had been one, it could not have taken place in 1229 because Muslim Moors then controlled the city. It is inconceivable that Muslims, who were at war with Spanish Christians, and had been off and on for five centuries, would allow Catholic bishops to hold a council in one of their cities. The Christian armies did not liberate Valencia from Moorish rule until nine years later, 1238. So Valencia is out.
But there is another possibility, and that is Toulouse, France, where a council was held in 1229. And, yes, that council dealt with the Bible. It was organized in reaction to the Albigensian or Catharist heresy, which held that there are two gods and that marriage is evil because all matter (and thus physical flesh) is evil. From this the heretics concluded that fornication could be no sin, and they even encouraged suicide among their members. In order to promulgate their sect, the Albigensians published an inaccurate translation of the Bible in the vernacular language (rather like the Jehovah’s Witnesses of today publishing their severely flawed New World Translation of the Bible, which has been deliberately mistranslated to support the sect’s claims). Had it been an accurate translation, the Church would not have been concerned. Vernacular versions had been appearing for centuries. But what came from the hands of the Albigensians was an adulterated Bible. The bishops at Toulouse forbade the reading of it because it was inaccurate. In this they were caring for their flocks, just as a Protestant minister of today might tell his flock not to read the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World...
[and it turns out that some intrepid Catholics found the same and posted it in the same thread:
## In fairness to Boettner, it should be said that we are all at the mercy of our sources: & his source for the error about Valencia (which was corrected at some point between 1962 & 1989, the dates of the first & fifth editions of his book) did not start with him.
It can be a traced to a book published in Scotland in 1855, which relies for some of its info (including the mention of Valencia) on a slightly earlier book (not seen by me). That’s as far back as I can trace it Somebody well-acquainted with 19th-century anti-Catholic literature might trace it back even further.
As Boettner was an American, the likelihood is that his immediate source was American; which does not mean his source must have been anti-Catholic. http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=239512
So, what we see here is the usual stupidity of anti-Catholics always believing anti-Catholic stuff precisely because it is anti-Catholic.
Another Catholic notes:
The Bible was never “forbidden” to laymen. Boettner has the same date and adds “forbidden to laymen, placed on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Council of Valencia....1229.” I have two editions of Boettner’s anti-Catholic book and the later edition corrects this to the Council of Toulouse. There was no Council of Valencia in 1229. And as Karl Keating points out, there never was a Council in Valencia, Spain and the Index of Forbidden Books wasn’t established until 1543! What was “forbidden” were the erroneous versions of the Bible propogated by the Albigenses to support their heresy of Manicheanism. It was a local, temporary matter restricted to southern France. That is all.
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num4.htm
Protestants are still burning Bibles so I don’t see why banning Albigensian Bibles 800 years ago would shock anyone: http://www.lisnews.org/nc_church_plans_burn_bibles_christian_books
You wrote:
“The Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible was revised in 1750, and the text used by Catholics now - the Challoner revision - was largely taken from the KJV, with Catholic doctrine inserted.”
Not exactly. Much of the KJV was based on the DRV. Later, Challoner revised the DRV to increase the utility of the translation (it was filled with Latinisms that simply didn’t work for 18th century English speakers).
As the old Catholic Encyclopedia notes:
Although the Bibles in use in the twentieth century by the Catholics of England and Ireland are popularly styled the Douay Version, they are most improperly so called; they are founded, with more or less alteration, on a series of revisions undertaken by Bishop Challoner in 1749-52. His object was to meet the practical want felt by the Catholics of his day of a Bible moderate in size and price, in readable English, and with notes more suitable to the time. He brought out three editions of the New Testament, in 1749, 1750, and 1752 respectively, and one of the Old Testament in 1750. The changes introduced by him were so considerable that, according to Cardinal Newman, they “almost amounted to a new translation”. So also, Cardinal Wiseman wrote, “To call it any longer the Douay or Rheimish Version is an abuse of terms. It has been altered and modified until scarcely any sense remains as it was originally published”. In nearly every case Challoner’s changes took the form of approximating to the Authorized Version, though his three editions of the New Testament differ from one another in numerous passages. The best known version published in England in modern times was perhaps Haydock’s, which was first issued at Manchester in fortnightly parts in 1811-12. The Irish editions are mostly known by the names of the bishops who gave the imprimatur: as Dr. Carpenter’s New Testament (1783); Dr. Troy’s Bible (1791); Dr. Murray’s (1825); and Dr. Denvir’s (1836) — the last two of which have often been reprinted, and were circulated largely in England and Ireland. Around the turn of the century, the issue of the sixpenny New Testament by Burns and Oates of London, by its large circulation, made the text adopted therein — Challoner’s of 1749 — the standard one, especially as the same was adopted in Dr. Murray’s and Dr. Denvir’s Bibles. In America an independent revision of the Douay Version by Archbishop Kenrick (1849-59) was much used.
End paste
I’m forunate enough to have facsimile copies of the original DRV, a new typesetting of that Bible, the Haydock edition, a couple of recent reprints of the famed 1899 edition, and the best of all the DRV which was produced by Douay House in the late 1930s. I thoroughly enjoy the DRV. By the way, I highly recommend the editions printed by St. Benedict’s Press (which recently bought TAN press). Their DRV is a terrific, beautiful version of the 1899 edition: http://absnospin.blogspot.com/2009/12/beautiful-large-print-douay-rheims.html I’ll probably be buying one soon.
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.