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.
Actually, other than the one (He who must not be named) comment it has been a good thread.
At least until the usual suspects show up. Right now it is kept on a higher level and quite interesting.
A thread on which trolls start to post is a thread where guilty blood was drawn. That is not a problem at all.
The word for church just meant an assembly called for a purpose. A religious assembly of people is a congregation.
Tyndale’s explanation includes:
” For wheresoever I may say a congregation, there may I say a church also ; as the church of the devil, the church of Satan, the church of wretches, the church of wicked men, the church of liars, and a church of Turks thereto. For M. More must grant (if he will have ecclesia translated throughout all the new Testament by this word church) M. c. c that church is as common as ecclesia. Now is ecclesia a ucaata is a
Greek word, and was in use before the time of the apostles, andsigmfieth and taken for a congregation among the heathen, where was “on. no congregation of God or of Christ. And also Lucas himself useth ecclesia for a church, or congregation, of heathen people thrice in one chapter, even in the nineteenth chapter of the Acts2, where Demetrius the goldsmith, or silversmith, Acts *,*• had gathered a company against Paul for preaching against images...
...But how happeth it that M. More hath not contended in M. More did like wise against his darling Erasmus all this long while? Doth he not change this word ecclesia into congregation, and that not seldom in the new Testament1? Peradventure he oweth him favour, because he made Moria in his house2 : which book, if it were in English, then should every man see how that he then was far otherwise minded than he now writeth. But, verily, I think that as Judas betrayed not Christ for any love that he had unto the high priests, scribes and Pharisees, but only to come by that wherefore he thirsted; even so M. More (as there are tokens evident) wrote not these books for any affection that he bare unto the spiritualty, or unto the opinions which he so barely defendeth, but to obtain only that which he was an hungred for. I pray God that he eat not too hastily, lest he be choked at the latter end; but that he repent, and resist not the Spirit of God, which openeth light unto the world.”
Vines has it: Assembly
ekklesia from ek, “out of,” and klesis, “a calling” (kaleo, “to call”), was used among the Greeks of a body of citizens “gathered” to discuss the affairs of state, Acts_19:39. In the Sept. it is used to designate the “gathering” of Israel, summoned for any definite purpose, or a “gathering” regarded as representative of the whole nation. In Acts_7:38 it is used of Israel; in Acts_19:32,41, of a riotous mob. It has two applications to companies of Christians,
(a) to the whole company of the redeemed throughout the present era, the company of which Christ said, “I will build My Church,” Matt_16:18, and which is further described as “the Church which is His Body,” Eph_1:22; Eph_5:23,
(b) in the singular number (e.g., Matt_18:17, RV marg., “congregation”), to a company consisting of professed believers, e.g., Acts_20:28; 1_Cor_1:2; Gal_1:13; 1_Thess_1:1; 2_Thess_1:1; 1_Tim_3:5, and in the plural, with reference to churches in a district.
I erred in referring to bishop. The word More attacked was “senior” instead of “priest”.
Why?
“Another thing which he rebuketh is, that I interpret this Greek word presbyteros by this word senior. Of a truth senior is no very good English, though senior and junior be used in the universities; but there came no better in my mind at that time. Howbeit, I spied my fault since, long ere M. More told it me3, and have mended it in all the works which I since made, and call it an elder. And in that he maketh heresy of it, to call presbyteros an elder, he condemneth their own old Latin text of heresy, which only they use yet daily in the church, and have used, I suppose, this fourteen hundred years: for that text doth call it an elder likewise. In the 1 Pet. v. thus standeth it in the Latin text: Seniores ergo qui in vobis sunt obsecro consenior, pascite qui in vobis est gregem Christi: “ The elders that M. c. cxxxv are among you, I beseech, which am an elder also, that ye feed the flock of Christ, which is among you.” There is presbyteros called an elder. And in that he saith, “ Feed Christ’s flock,” he meaneth even the ministers that were chosen to teach the people, and to inform them in God’s word, and no lay persons. And in the second epistle of John saith 2 John. the text, Senior electee domince et filiis ejus: “ The elder unto the elect lady and to her children.” And in the third 3 John, epistle of John, Senior Gaio dilecto: “ The elder unto the beloved Gaius.” In these two epistles presbyteros is called an elder. And in Acts, chap, xx., the text saith: “ Paul sent Actsxx. for majores natu ecclesice, the elders in birth of the congregation or church, and said unto them, Take heed unto yourselves, and unto the whole flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you episcopos ad regendum ecclesiam ; Dei,” bishops, or4 overseers, to govern the church of God. Bishops are There is presbyteros called an elder in birth; which same be overseers immediately is called a bishop or overseer, to declare what “^^the persons are meant. Hereof ye see that I have no more erred than their own text, which they have used since the scripture was first in the Latin tongue, and that their own I text understandeth by presbyteros nothing save an elder. And they were called elders, because of their age, gravity The mini*. and sadness, as thou may est see by the text; and bishops, church’why or overseers, by the reason of their offices. And all that «,iied eiders. were called elders (or priests, if they so will) were called bishops also, though they have divided the names now : which thing thou mayest evidently see by the first chapter of Titus, Thus i. and Acts xx., and other places more.
And when he layeth Timothy unto my charge, how he was young, then he weeneth that he hath won his gilden \ spurs5. But I would pray him to shew me where he readeth ‘ that Paul calleth him presbyteros, priest or elder. I durst not then call him episcopus properly: for those overseers, Bishops which we now call bishops after the Greek word, were briers in one place.
Vine’s has it:
Elder, Eldest [Adjective]
presbuteros an adjective, the comparative degree of presbus, “an old man, an elder,” is used
(a) of age, whether of the “elder” of two persons, Luke_15:25, or more, John_8:9, “the eldest;” or of a person advanced in life, a senior, Acts_2:17; in Heb_11:2, the “elders” are the forefathers in Israel; so in Matt_15:2; Mark_7:3,5; the feminine of the adjective is used of “elder” women in the churches, 1_Tim_5:2, not in respect of position but in seniority of age;
(b) of rank or positions of responsibility,
(1) among Gentiles, as in the Sept. of Gen_50:7; Num_22:7;
(2) in the Jewish nation, firstly, those who were the heads or leaders of the tribes and families, as of the seventy who assisted Moses, Num_11:16; Deut_27:1, and those assembled by Solomon; secondly, members of the Sanhedrin, consisting of the chief priests, “elders” and scribes, learned in Jewish law, e.g., Matt_16:21; Matt_26:47; thirdly, those who managed public affairs in the various cities, Luke_7:3;
(3) in the Christian churches, those who, being raised up and qualified by the work of the Holy Spirit, were appointed to have the spiritual care of, and to exercise oversight over, the churches. To these the term “bishops,” episkopoi, or “overseers,” is applied (see Acts 20, Luke_7:17 with Luke_7:28, and Titus_1:5,7), the latter term indicating the nature of their work, presbuteroi their maturity of spirtual experience. The Divine arrangement seen throughout the NT was for a plurality of these to be appointed in each church, Acts_14:23; Acts_20:17; Php_1:1; 1_Tim_5:17; Titus_1:5. The duty of “elders” is described by the verb episkopeo. They were appointed according as they had given evidence of fulfilling the Divine qualifications, Titus_1:6-9; cp. 1_Tim_3:1-7; 1_Pet_5:2;
(4) the twenty-four “elders” enthroned in heaven around the throne of God, Rev_4:4,10; Rev_5:5-14; Rev_7:11,13; Rev_11:16; Rev_14:3; Rev_19:4. The number twenty-four is representative of earthly conditions. The word “elder” is nowhere applied to angels. See OLD.
Repent instead of do penance:
Tyndale:
“And that I use this word knowledge, and not confession ; and this word repentance, and not penance*. In which all he cannot prove that I give not the right English unto the Greek word. But it is a far other thing that paineth them, and biteth them by the breasts. There be secret pangs that pinch the very hearts of them, whereof they dare not complain. The sickness, that maketh them so impatient, is that they have lost their juggling terms. For the doctors and preachers were wont to make many divisions, distinctions, and sorts of grace; gratis data, gratum faciens, prceveniens, and subsequens3. And with confession they juggled; and so made the people, as oft as they spake of it, understand shrift in the ear; whereof the scripture maketh no mention: no, it is clean against the scripture, as they use it and preach it; and unto God an abomination, and a foul stinking sacrifice unto the filthy idol Priapus. The loss of those juggling terms is the matter whereof all these bots breed; that gnaw them by the bellies, and make them so unquiet.
And in like manner, by this word penance they make the people understand holy deeds of their enjoining; with sinS : when all the scripture preacheth that Christ hath made full satisfaction for our sins to God-ward ; and we must now be thankful to God again, and kill the lusts of our flesh with holy works of God’s enjoining. And I am bound to take patiently all that God layeth on my back ; and, if I
have hurt my neighbour, to shrive myself unto him, and to “’”’” make him amends, if I have wherewith ; or if not, then to ask him forgiveness, and he is bound to forgive me. And Jjtc. ci»as for their penance, the scripture knoweth not of [it]. The Greek hath Metanoia, and Metanoite, repentance and repent; or forethinking and forethink. As we say in English, ‘ It forethinketh me, or I forethink4;’ and ‘ I repent, or it re- Faith i n penteth me ;’ and ‘ I am sorry that I did it.’ So now the ethTme””” scripture saith, ‘ Repent, or let it forethink you ; and come “’ and believe the gospel, or glad tidings, that is brought you in Christ, and so shall all be forgiven you ; and henceforth live a new life.’ And it will follow, if I repent in the heart, that I shall do no more so, willingly and of purpose. And M. c. cixivif I believed the gospel, what God hath done for me in M.c.cixvii Christ, I should surely love him again, and of love prepare c myself unto his commandments.
Vines has it:
A1. Repent, Repentance [Verb]
metanoeo lit., “to perceive afterwards” (meta, “after,” implying “change,” noeo, “to perceive;” nous, “the mind, the seat of moral reflection”), in contrast to pronoeo, “to perceive beforehand,” hence signifies “to change one’s mind or purpose,” always, in the NT, involving a change for the better, an amendment, and always, except in Luke_17:3,4, of “repentance” from sin. The word is found in the Synoptic Gospels (in Luke, nine times), in Acts five times, in the Apocalypse twelve times, eight in the messages to the churches, Rev_2:5 (twice), Rev_2:16,21 (twice), RV, “she willeth not to repent” (2nd part); Rev_3:3,19 (the only churches in those chapters which contain no exhortation in this respect are those at Smyrna and Philadelphia); elsewhere only in 2_Cor_12:21. See also the general Note after C1 below.
A2. Repent, Repentance [Verb]
metamelomai meta, as in metanoeo, and melo, “to care for,” is used in the Passive Voice with the Middle Voice sense, signifying “to regret, to repent oneself,” Matt_21:29, RV, “repented himself;” Matt_21:32, RV, “ye did (not) repent yourselves” (AV, “ye repented not”); Matt_27:3, “repented himself” 2_Cor_7:8 (twice), RV, “regret” in each case; Heb_7:21, where alone in the NT it is said (negatively) of God.
C1. Repent, Repentance [Noun]
metanoia “afterthought, change of mind, repentance,” corresponds in meaning to metanoeo, and is used of “repentance” from sin or evil, except in Heb_12:17, where the word “repentance” seems to mean, not simply a change of Isaac’s mind, but such a change as would reverse the effects of his own previous state of mind. Esau’s birthright-bargain could not be recalled; it involved an irretrievable loss. As regards “repentance” from sin,
(a) the requirement by God on man’s part is set forth, e.g., in Matt_3:8; Luke_3:8; Acts_20:21; Acts_26:20;
(b) the mercy of God in giving “repentance” or leading men to it is set forth, e.g., in Acts_5:31; Acts_11:18; Rom_2:4; 2_Tim_2:25. The most authentic mss. omit the word in Matt_9:13; Mark_2:17, as in the RV.
Note: In the OT, “repentance” with reference to sin is not so prominent as that change of mind or purpose, out of pity for those who have been affected by one’s action, or in whom the results of the action have not fulfilled expectations, a “repentance” attributed both to God and to man, e.g., Gen_6:6; Ex_32:14 (that this does not imply anything contrary to God’s immutability, but that the aspect of His mind is changed toward an object that has itself changed, see under RECONCILE).
In the NT the subject chiefly has reference to “repentance” from sin, and this change of mind involves both a turning from sin and a turning to God. The parable of the Prodigal Son is an outstanding illustration of this. Christ began His ministry with a call to “repentance,” Matt_4:17, but the call is addressed, not as in the OT to the nation, but to the individual. In the Gospel of John, as distinct from the Synoptic Gospels, referred to above, “repentance” is not mentioned, even in connection with John the Baptist’s preaching; in John’s Gospel and 1st Epistle the effects are stressed, e.g., in the new birth, and, generally, in the active turning from sin to God by the exercise of faith (John_3:3; John_9:38; 1_John_1:9), as in the NT in general.
Quotes from Tyndale are found here:
Quotes from Vine’s found here:
http://www.antioch.com.sg/cgi-bin/bible/vines/find_term.pl
If you can read a Bible, thank the Catholic Church”
No thanks, I thank God.
Also
The Church Jesus started are the people who believe in Jesus, not a denomination.
“OH, PLEASE!!! You are way off. The common people in England were ALWAYS taught the Our Father in the vernacular.”
Actually, I read a while back of a man condemned to death because his family could say the Lord’s Prayer in the common English. It is too late for me to try to find the reference tonight.
“Yeah, actually it was - among the commoners. They just differed from region to region. They still do.”
Incorrect. The differences were far greater, and could make it impossible at times for travelers to communicate. To some extent Wycliffe, but far more Tyndale, had to choose which words to use - and their words BECAME the common words in England.
“Luther wrote in a Saxon court dialect. That didn’t stop his from becoming the normative dialect.”
Luther worked very hard to get it into the language of the common folks, not of the court.
i am not Catholic, but i do credit the Catholic Church with preserving The Word... (yes--i know that ultimately, God is responsible)...
“Let us not forget that Luther’s translation had a deliberate lie in it, in Romans 3:28.”
Not accurate. You may not like Luther’s translation, but it wasn’t a lie.
See:
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html
Metanoia, and Metanoite, repentance and repent; or forethinking and forethink
He does not address the acts of St. John and of Jesus in the contexts of which the call to penance was made. More of the same: hiding behind words in order to put the established meaning of things off balance. The part about "juggling terms" betrays him: he wants to upset the semantical edifice in order to negate the meaning of the Bible. He is not therefore translating, he is making arguments. But whom is he appealing to? Eramsus? No, he is appealing to the masses. Can the masses appreciate his argument? No, -- they don't know Greek. He is undermining the teaching authority of the Church by making superficial arguments that sound plausible to the uneducated.
This is a typical propagandist waxing serious because he got caught.
I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that.
When one inserts a word that is not there, knows it is not there, then build a theology around that word being there, that man is no longer translating, he is lying.
That others made comments -- not translations -- that seem to agree with Luther has nothing to do with the issue of faudulent translation. Luther was free to argue that salvation is by faith alone, or that it is by whatever else that popped in his mind. He was not free to put words into God's mouth.
That defense of Luther "How to Respond" (LOL) is a shameful exercise in dishonesty itself. See how it is constructed: kilobytes are spent on pointing out that Luther's arrogant letter defending his lies was written polemically. Then, he explains how Luther must have felt. Then he admits the main point (cited above) very quickly, and moves on to what commentary exists where "faith" and "alone" are used in the same sentence.
Good theology cannot come from corrupt people. Luther was a corrupt person, - a liar. His theology is corrupt too. It contradicts the Bible plainly. Flee from the error of the "reformation" and read what the Bible actually says.
I'm sure they appreciate acts of charity. I hope you are not equating heretics to those that disagree with you/your church. The thread so far has been interesting and has not degenerated into some of the name calling I have seen in the past.It is actually a good exercise for all sides to defend ones beliefs to examine whether you still believe in what you say or repeat what you have been told/taught or you enjoy beating ones adversaries down for guilty pleasure.
That's a keeper there. chuckle.
My batty son Pat hand-writes reproductions of the typeface in his school workbooks, like the forgery group in "The Great Escape" replicating German ID cards. It's the weirdest thing.
My “American Colonies” lectures had a section on Georgia that mentioned the Wesleys’ spending time there. I’ll have to look in the bibliography for more information.
Obviously at that late date the rising middle class was reading. Tottel was a bookseller by trade. The middle class is where all the readers were in the 16th century - neither the nobility nor the ordinary working stiff did much reading.
Maybe one can argue that the 'merchant class' or bourgeoisie - with leisure to read and business reasons to do so - started appearing as early as the 12th century, but their numbers were minuscule and remained so for centuries. The point is that we're still talking about an elite, not the common people.
And just as an aside, the popularity of unauthorized Bible translations had almost as much to do with the rising middle class's political and economic ambitions as it did with religion.
John and Charles Wesley came over to Georgia in 1736. Charles went to Ft. Frederica on St. Simons Island, John spent time in Savannah and also at Frederica. The colonists weren't really interested, and they both went home after a couple of years.
The church still exists - Christ Church Frederica - obviously not the original tabby building but a small 19th c. carpenter Gothic structure that was built after the Yankees burned the previous one. It's still an Episcopal church as it was when the Wesley brothers were there.
The hilarious thing is that of course a huge Methodist conference center, Epworth-by-the-Sea, has grown up right next door. Tour buses full of Methodists come round to see the church -- sometimes they come in when a service is going on, and are absolutely shocked to find an Episcopal service in full swing. It was especially funny before the prayer book revision.
“If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it ought to be good enough for the children of Texas.”...MA Ferguson, Gov Texas, 1933
That’s a charming little church ... and it looks so warm, too! I’ve got about 2” of ice at my casa, and RC is going on a foot of snow.
Ahhh...good memories. I spend more than one Sunrise Service at Old Salem.
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.