“False. It was more expensive to publish an English Bible for three reasons: 1) Latin Bibles abounded and were thus relatively inexpensive to copy, 2) English Bibles did not exist in complete form and a translator would have to work on such a project for years. That’s expensive., 3) Latin is a more compact language than English which can mean fewer pages and less cost.”
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? Was it too expensive to produce an English Bible, or wasn’t it? Were there no translators who could do it, or were there? 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?
“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.