|
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.
***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.
RSV. Thank you, Ignatius Press, for a fine, large print, solid-paper, RSV.
“If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it ought to be good enough for the children of Texas.”...MA Ferguson, Gov Texas, 1933
“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.”
I guess the Roman Church was a little slow getting to England. The Great Bible was the first authorized English language Bible and distributed to the parishes with the instructions: “set up in some convenient place within the said church that ye have care of, whereas your parishioners may most commodiously resort to the same and read it”
It must be pointed out that this was done in 1538 during the reign of King Henry VIII - after the Act of Supremacy
Did they publish a reformed Egyptian version?
What revisionous tripe! The Roman Catholic Church owes a unilateral apology to the countless persecuted through the ages because of their desire to have the Bible in their own language - not the least of which, William Tyndale who was systematically TORTURED by papal decree.
What revisionous tripe! The Roman Catholic Church owes a unilateral apology to the countless persecuted through the ages because of their desire to have the Bible in their own language - not the least of which, William Tyndale who was systematically TORTURED by papal decree.
