William Tyndale (Reformation Day 2013)

“Permission was clearly freely given...”

Compare with what you wrote earlier:

“Unless you were English after 1408 or in France during the Albigensian heresy you never needed anyone’s permission in the first place.”

Also note the underlying assumption here... that man needs permission from your religion in order to read the scripture. Secondly, that the Roman Catholic Church possesses the power to give this permission, and therefore has the power to restrain it, and that man has no inherit power to read the scripture, but must petition it from his betters, many of whom had bought their Bishopric in the first place, and were mostly a gaggle of whoremongers, drunks, and other types of fiends who found their way into power within your infallible church.

Next, compare this to the words of the early church Fathers, even during times in which horrible heresies existed:

Theodoret of Cyrus:

Scripture Must Be Universally Available

“Having thus brought out the benefit of the divinely-inspired Scripture, he bids him make it available to everyone, and instills dead by his adjuration. I adjure you, therefore, in the presence of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is due to judge living and dead: in view of his coming and his kingdom, preach the word (vv.1-2). Fearful of rendering an account, the divine apostle never ceases to impress this on the disciple with his adjuration.” (Theodoret of Cyrus (around A.D. 393 to around A.D. 457), Commentary on 2 Timothy, Chapter 4, in Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, Volume 2, p. 246 (2001), Robert C. Hill translator.)

Isn’t the real truth simply that your religion, thumping its chest, having gotten control over the church, sought to control even the thoughts of their subjects?

But thanks be to God that your religion’s power was wrested away, and they, who once made Kings to fear, are now the laughing stock of the whole world. So much so that your own Popes tell Atheists they can get to heaven, provided they follow their own conscience towards the common “Good”.

“The other Papist on this thread just got done lauding all these Catholic translators, and even gave the printing press to the glory of Catholicism. So, which is it?”

Both. We’re not contradicting each other. I realize many Protestant anti-Catholics are at a loss to understand simple things like logic so let me help. Let’s say the first person to turn oil into gasoline was Latvian. Let’s say hundreds of Latvians turned oil into gasoline in the Late Middle Ages and Early Modern Period. Does that mean making gasoline would be cheap? No. Does that mean the Latvians would discover almost magical ways to make the process of turning oil into gasoline cheaper than simply producing oil itself (i.e. discovering how to produce translations at the same cost as producing Latin translations)? No.

“Was it too expensive to produce an English Bible, or wasn’t it?”

Both - depending on who is doing it, paying for it, and printing or copying it. If you’re rich, then the expense is unimportant. Now, how many Bible translators do you know who are rich? Oh, right, almost none. Funny how that works out huh? To produce any Bible by hand, using long lasting materials was very expensive. A Bible on vellum would require 200 sheep to be slaughtered and their skins to be properly prepared. It would also require a monk to spend ten months to do the copying by hand. Gee, does that sound expensive to you? It sure sounds expensive to me. Now, we know that cheaper copies were made of individual books of the Bible. These were much cheaper, much more coarse and crude in their production and often only lasted one generation or less before falling apart. Were those expensive? Not compared to a vellum Bible, but even then someone had to spend days or weeks copying out the books - and that cost money.

“Were there no translators who could do it, or were there?”

Yes and no. There were no professional translators until modern times. People who read Latin needed no translations into the vernacular and saw little opportunity in producing translations until the book market really gained steam with the rise of moveable type printing. You’re, of course, asking the wrong question. The real question is: Translate into what? English - as we know it - is relatively modern. English changed so dramatically from the 7th century until the 15th that it really was three different languages in succession. That’s why it is studied that way: Old English (Anglo-Saxon), Middle English, and Modern English. And which dialect of English would you use? There were several different - markedly different - dialects. That’s why our spelling of English is so irregular even today. People who are ignorant of the whole subject of translation take none of this into account...of course.

“Or was there a bunch of English Papist Bibles about that the evil Tyndale sought to replace, because there was no demand for an English Bible at all? So which is it?”

There were Catholic Bibles in English - or large parts of the Bible in English - as attested to by Protestants themselves in circulation before the Protestant era. Tyndale, however, was tapping into the growing Lutheran-Protestant movement in England. His fellow travelers certainly wanted his Bible. Catholic Bibles or Biblical books were still made by hand in England. Tyndale was mass producing his. Both efforts show an interest in the Bible in England.

At Pentecost the disciples were speaking in tongues of different languages. When Christ told the disciples to preach the Gospel to the world I don’t think He meant Latin.

You wrote:

“Compare with what you wrote earlier”

Go ahead and compare. Everything I said is absolutely true. Permissions were freely given by Bishops. The permissions I was referring to was specifically continental and post mid 16th century. England in 1408 was neither continental now merely after 1408. Do you see the difference? It helps if you know about history and geography. Really, it does.

About Theodoret:

“...he bids him make it available to everyone, ...preach the word...”

You make the word “available to everyone” by making sure to “preach the word”. PREACHING. That’s how Jesus did it. That’s how the Apostles did it. That’s how the Church has always done it.

“Both - depending on who is doing it, paying for it, and printing or copying it. If you’re rich, then the expense is unimportant. Now, how many Bible translators do you know who are rich? Oh, right, almost none.”

Of course, there’s the big elephant in the room, called the printing press, which had been around since about the 1450s, which Tyndale made great use of. Though still not cheap, it apparently was not a huge detriment to the Christians who risked their lives to get them to the common people.

“Catholic Bibles or Biblical books were still made by hand in England. Tyndale was mass producing his. Both efforts show an interest in the Bible in England.”

Most likely the Bibles in English they had were those left over from Wyclif, and that, only owned by the very rich. Obviously, the demand was not caused because they had an abundance of Papist Bibles in English. Though you are free to produce these Bibles, whether or not they were authorized, who authorized them, and how many were in circulation, at least an estimate.

“When Christ told the disciples to preach the Gospel to the world I don’t think He meant Latin.”

Except when preaching to Romans, right? And what was the Empire which ran most of the known world at that time? Oh, yeah, it was the ROMAN Empire. And what language was used in much of the Roman Empire? Oh, right, Latin.

“Of course, there’s the big elephant in the room, called the printing press, which had been around since about the 1450s,”

No, that is more properly called moveable type printing. When people use the term “printing press” it all too often conjures up images of electrically operated machines. Those only came 4.5 centuries later.

“...which Tyndale made great use of. Though still not cheap, it apparently was not a huge detriment to the Christians who risked their lives to get them to the common people.”

You’re making a non-point. Catholics printed Bibles as well - they were the first ones to do so. German Catholics printed many Bible or New Testament editions before Luther did so. So?

II. The Middle Ages:

Owing to lack of culture among the Germanic and Romanic peoples, there was for a long time no thought of restricting access to the Bible there. Translations of Biblical books into German began only in the Carolingian period and were not originally intended for the laity. Nevertheless the people were anxious to have the divine service and the Scripture lessons read in the vernacular. John VIII in 880 permitted, after the reading of the Latin gospel, a translation into Slavonic; but Gregory VII, in a letter to Duke Vratislav of Bohemia in 1080 characterized the custom as unwise, bold, and forbidden (Epist., vii, 11; P. Jaff?, BRG, ii, 392 sqq.). This was a formal prohibition, not of Bible reading in general, but of divine service in the vernacular.

With the appearance, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, of the Albigenses and Waldenses, who appealed to the Bible in all their disputes with the Church, the hierarchy was furnished with a reason for shutting up the Word of God. The Synod of Toulouse in 1229 forbade the laity to have in their possession any copy of the books of the Old and the New Testament except the Psalter and such other portions as are contained in the Breviary or the Hours of the Blessed Mary.

“We most strictly forbid these works in the vulgar tongue” (Harduin, Concilia, xii, 178; Mansi, Concilia, xxiii, 194). The Synod of Tarragona (1234) ordered all vernacular versions to be brought to the bishop to be burned. James I renewed thin decision of the Tarragona synod in 1276. The synod held there in 1317 under Archbishop Ximenes prohibited to Beghards, Beguines, and tertiaries of the Franciscans the possession of theological books in the vernacular (Mansi, Concilia, xxv, 627). The order of James I was renewed by later kings and confirmed by Paul II (1464-71). Ferdinand and Isabella (1474-1516) prohibited the translation of the Bible into the vernacular or the possession of such translations (F. H. Reusch, Index der verbotenen B?cher, i, Bonn, 1883, 44).

In England Wyclif’s Bible-translation caused the resolution passed by the third Synod of Oxford (1408): “No one shall henceforth of his own authority translate any text of Scripture into English; and no part of any such book or treatise composed in the time of John Wycliffe or later shall be read in public or private, under pain of excommunication” (Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, vi, 984). But Sir Thomas More states that he had himself seen old Bibles which were examined by the bishop and left in the hands of good Catholic laymen (Blunt, Reformation of the Church of England, 4th ed., London, 1878, i, 505).

In Germany, Charles IV issued in 1369 an edict to four inquisitors against the translating and the reading of Scripture in the German language. This edict was caused by the operations of Beghards and Beguines. In 1485 and 1486, Berthold, archbishop of Mainz, issued an edict against the printing of religious books in German, giving among other reasons the singular one that the German language was unadapted to convey correctly religious ideas, and therefore they would be profaned. Berthold’s edict had some influence, but could not prevent the dissemination and publication of new editions of the Bible. Leaders in the Church sometimes recommended to the laity the reading of the Bible, and the Church kept silence officially as long as these efforts were not abused.

III. The Roman Catholic Church since the Reformation:

Luther’s translation of the Bible and its propagation could not but influence the Roman Catholic Church. Humanism, through such men as Erasmus, advocated the reading of the Bible and the necessity of making it accessible by translations; but it was felt that Luther’s translation must be offset by one prepared in the interest of the Church. Such editions were Emser’s of 1527, and the Dietenberg Bible of 1534. The Church of Rome silently tolerated these translations.
1. Action by the Council of Trent.

At last the Council of Trent took the matter in hand, and in its fourth session (Apr. 18, 1546) adopted the Decretum de editione et usu librorum sacrorum, which enacted the following: “This synod ordains and decrees that henceforth sacred Scripture, and especially the aforesaid old and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible; and that it shall not be lawful for any one to print, or cause to be printed, any books whatever on sacred matters without the name of the author; or in future to sell them, or even to possess them, unless they shall have been first examined and approved of by the ordinary.” When the question of the translation of the Bible into the vernacular came up, Bishop Acqui of Piedmont and Cardinal Pacheco advocated its prohibition. This was strongly opposed by Cardinal Madruzzi, who claimed that “not the translations but the professors of Hebrew and Greek are the cause of the confusion in Germany; a prohibition would produce the worst impression in Germany.” As no agreement could be had, the council appointed an index-commission to report to the pope, who was to give an authoritative decision.

2. Rules of Various Popes.

The first index published by a pope (Paul IV), in 1559, prohibited under the title of Biblia prohibita a number of Latin editions as well as the publication and possession of translations of the Bible in German, French, Spanish, Italian, English, or Dutch, without the permission of the sacred office of the Roman Inquisition (Reusch, ut sup., i, 264).

In 1584 Pius IV published the index prepared by the commission mentioned above. Herein ten rules are laid down, of which the fourth reads thus: “Inasmuch as it is manifest from experience that if the Holy Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue, be indiscriminately allowed to every one, the rashness of men will cause more evil than good to arise from it, it is, on this point, referred to the judgment of the bishops or inquisitors, who may, by the advice of the priest or confessor, permit the reading of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue by Catholic authors, to those persons whose faith and piety they apprehend will be augmented and not injured by it; and this permission must be had in writing. But if any shall have the presumption to read or possess it without such permission, he shall not receive absolution until he have first delivered up such Bible to the ordinary.” Regulations for booksellers follow, and then: “Regulars shall neither read nor purchase such Bibles without special license from their superiors.”

Sixtus V substituted in 1590 twenty-two new rules for the ten of Pius IV. Clement VIII abolished in 1596 the rules of Sixtus, but added a “remark” to the fourth rule given above, which particularly restores the enactment of Paul IV. The right of the bishops, which the fourth rule implies, is abolished by the “remark,” and the bishop may grant a dispensation only when especially authorized by the pope and the Inquisition (Reusch, ut sup., i, 333). Benedict XIV enlarged, in 1757, the fourth rule thus: “If such Bible-versions in the vernacular are approved by the apostolic see or are edited with annotations derived from the holy fathers of the Church or from learned and Catholic men, they are permitted.” This modification of the fourth rule was abolished by Gregory XVI in pursuance of an admonition of the index-congregation, Jan. 7, 1836, “which calls attention to the fact that according to the decree of 1757 only such versions in the vernacular are to be permitted as have been approved by the apostolic see or are edited with annotations,” but insistence is placed on all those particulars enjoined by the fourth rule of the index and afterward by Clement VIII (Reusch, ut sup., ii, 852).

3. Rules and Practice in Different Countries.

In England the reading of the Bible was made by Henry VIII (1530) to depend upon the permission of the superiors. Tyndale’s version, printed before 1535, was prohibited. In 1534 the Canterbury convocation passed a resolution asking the king to have the Bible translated and to permit its reading. A folio copy of Coverdale’s translation was put into every church for the benefit of the faithful, and fastened with a chain. In Spain the Inquisitor-General de Valdes published in 1551 the index of Louvain of 1550, which prohibits “Bibles (New and Old Testaments) in the Spanish or other vernacular” (Reusch, ut sup., i, 133). This prohibition was abolished in 1778. The Lisbon index of 1824 in Portugal prohibited quoting in the vernacular in any book passages from the Bible.

In Italy the members of the order of the Jesuits were in 1596 permitted to use a Catholic Italian translation of the Gospel-lessons. In France the Sorbonne declared, Aug. 26,1525, that a French translation of the Bible or of single books must be regarded as dangerous under conditions then present; extant versions were better suppressed than tolerated. In the following year, 1526, it prohibited the translation of the entire Bible, but permitted the translation of single books with proper annotations. The indexes of the Sorbonne, which by royal edict were binding, after 1544 contained the statement: “How dangerous it is to allow the reading of the Bible in the vernacular to unlearned people and those not piously or humbly disposed (of whom there are many in our times) may be seen from the Waldensians, Albigenses, and Poor Men of Lyons, who have thereby lapsed into error and have led many into the same condition. Considering the nature of men, the translation of the Bible into the vernacular must in the present be regarded therefore as dangerous and pernicious” (Reusch, ut sup., i, 151).

The rise of Jansenism in the seventeenth century, and especially the appearance, under its encouragement, of Quesnel’s New Testament with moral reflections under each verse (Le Nouveau Testament en franois avec des reflexions moroles sur chaque vers, Paris, 1699), which was expressly intended to popularize the reading of the Bible, caused the renewal, with increased stringency, of the rules already quoted. The Jesuits prevailed upon Clement XI to publish the famous bull Unigenitus, Sept. 8, 1713, in which he condemned seven propositions in Quesnel’s work which advocated the reading of the Bible by the laity (cf. H. J. D. Denzinger, Enchiridion, W?rzburg, 1854, 287). In the Netherlands, Neercassel, bishop of Emmerich, published in 1677 (in Latin) and 1680 (in French) a treatise in which he dealt with the fourth rule of the Tridentine index as obsolete, and urged the diligent reading of the Bible.

In Belgium in 1570 the unlicensed sale of the Bible in the vernacular was strictly prohibited; but the use of the Antwerp Bible continued. In Poland the Bible was translated and often published. In Germany papal decrees could not very well be carried out and the reading of the Bible was not only not prohibited, but was approved and praised. Billuart about 1750, as quoted by Van Ess, states, “In France, Germany, and Holland the Bible is read by all without distinction.” In the nineteenth century the clergy took great interest in the work of Bible Societies. Thus Leander van Ess acted as agent of the British and Foreign Bible Society for Catholic Germany, and the society published the New Testament of Van Ess, which was placed on the Index in 1821. The princes-bishop of Breslau, Sedlnitzki, who afterward joined the Evangelical Church, was also interested in circulating the Bible. As the Bible Societies generally circulated the translations of heretics, the popes?Leo XII (May 5, 1824); Pius VIII (May 25, 1829); Gregory XVI (Aug. 15, 1840; May 8, 1844); Pius IX (Nov. 9, 1846; Dec. 8, 1849) issued encyclicals against the Bible Societies. In the syllabus of 1864 “socialism, communism, secret societies, . . . and Bible Societies” are placed in the same category. As to the effect of the papal decrees there is a difference of opinion within the Catholic Church. In theory the admonition of Gregory XVI no doubt exists, but practice often ignores it.

http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc02/htm/iv.v.lxi.htm

Oh, yeah, it was the ROMAN Empire. And what language was used in much of the Roman Empire? Oh, right, Latin.

Eh, why were the autographs and manuscripts in Greek then.

“Most likely the Bibles in English they had were those left over from Wyclif, and that, only owned by the very rich.”

If only owned by them, that merely shows how expensive full Bibles were when hand made. Also, the Gasquet thesis about pre-Reformation Bibles cannot be ignored. You probably don’t even know what that is, right?

“Obviously, the demand was not caused because they had an abundance of Papist Bibles in English.”

There was always a demand and still is. I have dozens of Bibles - actually I am probably grossly underestimating the number. Demand for books - especially the Bible - is never satiated by a leap forward in technology to produce more massive quantities of them. What happens today is that many people who read the Bible have multiple copies of it - because it is now cheap to buy them (even $200 Bibles are comparatively cheap to Bibles 500 years ago).

“Though you are free to produce these Bibles, whether or not they were authorized, who authorized them, and how many were in circulation, at least an estimate.”

I have no idea what you’re trying to say there. It seems you posted a string of clauses with no particular point.

“You make the word “available to everyone” by making sure to “preach the word”. PREACHING. That’s how Jesus did it. That’s how the Apostles did it. That’s how the Church has always done it.”

LOL, look at the mind of the Papist, who wants the Bible taken out of the hand, so it can be placed into the mouth of their ignorant Priests:

“as Bishop John Hooper recorded in 1551, ignorance among the priesthood continued as the rule of the day. When this Bishop of Worcester and Gloucester made the rounds of his diocese, he found that of 311 clergymen, 171 could not repeat the Ten Commandments, 10 could not say the Lord’s Prayer in English, and seven did not know its author. Tyndale, a Catholic priest, was much grieved by the anomalies in the Church. So at age 30, although still a priest, he chose to be tutor of Sir John Walsh, a knight of Gloucestershire, from 1521 to 1523.

The hospitality of Sir John and Lady Walsh often resulted in doctors and abbots sharing a meal with William Tyndale, where many a debate ensued. At one time a learned churchman said to Tyndale, “We were better to be without God’s laws than the Pope’s.” Tyndale recognised that this sadly summarised the prevailing view of many church leaders, who had little knowledge of the Scriptures.”

http://www.cai.org/bible-studies/tyndale

But Theodoret specifically referenced the scripture being made present, and preaching is mentioned only later in the text. Obviously scripture can be written, or it can be read, but either way it is available in some written form, as Theodoret mentions in another place:

“’When you come, bring the cloak I left with Carpus at Troas, and the books, especially the parchments’ (v.13). By parchments he referred to the scrolls, this being the way the Romans refer to the skins. In olden times they kept the divine Scriptures on scrolls, and this is the way the Jews keep them to the present day.” (Theodoret of Cyrus (around A.D. 393 to around A.D. 457), Commentary on 2 Timothy, Chapter 4, in Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, Volume 2, p. 248 (2001), Robert C. Hill translator.)

More, this time from John Chrysostom:

“... this I say, not to prevent you from procuring Bibles, on the contrary, I exhort and earnestly pray that you do this” (Homilies on the Gospel According to St. John, 32:3)

“It is a great thing, this reading of the Scriptures!...For it is not possible, I say not possible, ever to exhaust the mind of the Scriptures. It is a well which has no bottom....How many persons, do you suppose, have spoken upon the Gospels? And yet all have spoken in a way which was new and fresh. For the more one dwells on them, the more insight does he get, the more does he behold the pure light.” (Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, 19)

“And so ye also, if ye be willing to apply to the reading of him [Paul] with a ready mind, will need no other aid. For the word of Christ is true which saith, ‘Seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.’ (Matt. vii. 7.)...For from this it is that our countless evils have arisen - from ignorance of the Scriptures; from this it is that the plague of heresies has broken out; from this that there are negligent lives; from this labors without advantage. For as men deprived of this daylight would not walk aright, so they that look not to the gleaming of the Holy Scriptures must needs be frequently and constantly sinning, in that they are walking the worst darkness.” (Homilies on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, The Argument)

“Go ahead and compare. Everything I said is absolutely true”

So are you going to conk out from the logical inconsistency of your posts and therefore leave us alone? Probably not. Would that you were one of those androids from that one episode of Star Trek, then you would not be able to trouble us further!

“There was always a demand and still is. I have dozens of Bibles - actually I am probably grossly underestimating the number.”

You can thank the Reformation for that, since, otherwise, the Church would have the authority to take those scriptures away, if they deemed you a danger to yourself or others, and then burn them in a bonfire like in the good old days.

“I have no idea what you’re trying to say there.”

I’m asking you to give evidence for your assertion, about Papist Bibles being freely available in England after 1408. How many there were, who had them, who authorized them, etc.

Careful. They’ll burn you at the stake in here.

“Eh, why were the autographs and manuscripts in Greek then.”

Show me the autographs. Oh, that’s right, you can’t because no one alive has ever seen them and everyone - AND I MEAN EVERYONE - believes they were lost or destroyed at least 1500 or 1600 year ago if not even earlier. The Apostles wrote in the languages they knew to people they knew could read them in the languages they were written in or translated into. There’s plenty of reason to believe some NT books were written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Got some money? http://www.amazon.com/The-Hebrew-Christ-Language-Gospels/dp/0819908762/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_1

Got a lot less money? http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Of-Matthew-Translation-Notes/dp/0931888654/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_1

And somewhere in between: http://www.amazon.com/Birth-Synoptic-Gospels-Jean-Carmignac/dp/0819908878

Also, think of the audience the Apostles were writing to generally speaking: people mostly in the lower classes, or in the eastern half of the Roman Empire. They spoke Greek in their homes and in most businesses. People in the Western half of the Empire generally spoke Latin. When Paul was writing to the Romans he was generally writing to people from the lower classes - Greek speaking slaves - or even educated people who would have received what we would have called a classical education which included - you guessed it - Greek. There were also Greek speaking colonies in the West. Lyons was still speaking Greek (and Latin) in the third century A.D. for instance.

Maybe if you would refrain from insulting him with the word “Papist” he might give a better response.

“Maybe if you would refrain from insulting him with the word “Papist” he might give a better response.”

I like the low quality of his posts already, so I am not fussed about it.

>> What fantasy world are you living in? Most people only got to about the 3rd grade in those days, being able to read English, but certainly not much Latin. <<

You’ve got two wrong presumptions:
1. It’s not that most of the countryside was poorly educated. It’s that they were completely uneducated. Those who were educated were often very well educated.
2. It’s not that they learned English, and then learned Latin in the higher levels, like now. Latin was the basic education; English was so rarely part of a basic education, that there was no standardization in spelling, grammar, etc; usually anyone writing in English was merely trying to transcribe the sounds of common speech.

>> Of course, it also helps that you could not even own or read a Bible on your own unless you had permission to do so by a Bishop. The cost of putting together a Bible, whether in Latin or English, is the same, so it does not follow that this is a real excuse for the RCC forbidding translations in the common language for people to actually understand. <<

No-one was forbidden to own a bible; that’s the Black Legend I referred to. But a bible cost far more than anyone but a nobleman could afford. Every Catholic church, however, as a matter of canon law, had a public bible that anyone could peruse. If you wanted to take such a bible home with you, yes, you’d better have permission of the bishop, or be able to pay for a years’ salary of a well-educated monk.

>> A Latin Bible belched out by a Priest is meaningless to 99 percent of the congregation, and they have to rely on the Priest’s interpretation and translation on the spot, instead of reading an English or other scripture in the common language. <<

Not exactly. “Glosses” (from the Latin word, for “tongues”) were translations written between the lines of Latin Bibles. Latin Bibles commonly had glosses of the liturgical readings, which included nearly all of the New Testament, the Psalms, and the passages of the Old Testaments which were referenced by the New Testament. The priest would read the gloss, and then would preach a homily, or interpretation and implementation of the readings. When people say there was a lack of English bible, they mean that there were few entire bibles written in English; there were however many, many glosses.

>> Of course, thanks be to God, we no longer have to get permission from the Bishop or the RCC to even use a Bible! <<

Yes, you can thank a Catholic for working with the Church to make bibles affordable so that you didn’t need to read the church, library, university or seminary copy.

... and while we’re at it, let’s not forget that the university was a Catholic invention made to ensure the biblical literacy of anyone who was educated. That’s why we call university teachers, “professors”: they professed the bible!

No, the Catholics burning Protestants thing isn’t purely a legend. After the Protestants took over England, and massacred every priest, nun, and monk they could get their hands on, slaughtered countless children, seized the seminaries, destroyed every book, window and statue* they could find, razed the churches, etc., there were plenty of Catholics who enacted revenge on the instigators of such cultural genocide.

(* given a large, illiterate population, churches were filled with statues and windows which depicted the lives of saints and the stories of the bibles. People would memorize the meaning of each of dozens of unique features in each image, and by doing so learn their cultural heritage. The King’s iconoclasm wasn’t religious: he smashed statues of Christ, and erected statues of himself! It was an attempt to eliminate the cultural heritage of Christian Britain.)

“You’ve got two wrong presumptions:

On the contrary, aren’t you just making assumptions in the hopes of getting us to believe that anyone could read Latin who could read at all? And therefore, anyone who was literate could read the scripture freely? Actually education in those days consisted of lessons in English grammar, taught in such a way to prepare them for later lessons in Latin. But, not everyone who could read English also read Latin. And even then, everyone spoke and understood English, so why could it not be read to them?

Of course, the illogical thing about these assumptions of yours is that, if no one could read them even in English in the first place, why prohibit the Bible? Isn’t it because the church decided it was too dangerous to allow the vernacular to the common people, since they, according to the judgment of the church, were too stupid to understand it rightly?

“Every Catholic church, however, as a matter of canon law, had a public bible that anyone could peruse.”

But certainly not STUDY, unless you were willing to go through the hoops of the Roman Catholic Church. Now, were these Bibles in English, or were they in Latin?

Well, low + low is still low.