OK...Sorbonne’s efforts preceded Trent. Indeed, as I cited earlier, it had preceded the Council of Trent in banning translations by 30 years. The Pope issued his list of banned works after Trent. Do you deny the banning was with the approval of the Catholic Church? Or that the reasons they gave were contrary to the beliefs of the Catholic Church? Or that the Council of Trent was part of the wave of repression offered by the Catholic Church?
From Schaff:
“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”
So yes, the movement to ban vernacular translations was afoot before the Council of Trent, which Council then determined:
““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.”
Now, in England, the only translation attempt made used the auspices of the Catholic Church was the D-R, which was so poorly done that it soon languished for over 100 years without being printed. It took a revision around 1750 to make it decent enough that people would WANT to use it, and even then it deliberately mistranslated words like “repent”.
So...if an approved translation was needed, and the Catholic Church didn’t sign off on a decent one until 1750, hundreds of years after Tyndale’s excellent translation - what does that tell you? Or, to be more precise, what would that tell an unbiased observer?
“OK...Sorbonne’s efforts preceded Trent.”
Which means you were wrong. Embarrassingly wrong.
“Indeed, as I cited earlier, it had preceded the Council of Trent in banning translations by 30 years.”
Exactly where and when did Trent ban translations? Your source says there was no such ban from Trent: http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc02/htm/iv.v.lxi.htm Did you even read your own source???
“The Pope issued his list of banned works after Trent.”
Which would mean it wasn’t done by Trent, but you just said: “it had preceded the Council of Trent in banning translations by 30 years.” Can you make up your mind?
“Do you deny the banning was with the approval of the Catholic Church?”
What banning?
“Or that the reasons they gave were contrary to the beliefs of the Catholic Church?”
Who is “they”? What “beliefs” are you talking about? Are we back to time travel now?
“Or that the Council of Trent was part of the wave of repression offered by the Catholic Church?”
What repression? And if it was a “wave of repression” wouldn’t that mean that any actions taken were merely in response to some perceived need?
“Now, in England, the only translation attempt made used the auspices of the Catholic Church was the D-R, which was so poorly done that it soon languished for over 100 years without being printed.”
The original Douay Rheims Bible was made by a handful of Jesuits at the English College at Douay - that’s in FRANCE not England. It has nihil obstat and imprimatur from local clergy in France. I know of only one high up clergyman involved and that was Cardinal Allen who had established the college IN FRANCE and helped out with the translation. It was not poorly done - I’ve read it and own two different copies (not originals, just facsimile editions). As the Bible’s preface itself states, it was because of the “lack of means,” and their “poor estate in banishment,” that kept the English college Jesuits from publishing the whole Bible for nearly 30 years after producing the NT in 1582. After the Old Testament was published in 1609-1610, it was published again in 1635. The New Testament was published again in 1600, and again in 1621 and again in 1633. It was only after all of those printings that the publishing of the original Douay Rheims ceased. By then many English Catholics were dead. It was illegal to practice the faith in England don’t forget. English priests were hunted down and murdered in the late 16th century: http://www.amazon.com/Autobiography-Hunted-Priest-John-Gerard/dp/1586174509 To get caught in possession of Catholic books meant harsh reprisals.
Now, here’s a point you probably didn’t know: Catholics didn’t have to print the Douay-Rheims New Testament after 1582 because the Protestants printed it for them. In 1589 the Puritan, William Fulke, published the entire D-R New Testament in a two column Bible alongside a Protestant translation. He did it to attack what he considered to be deficiencies of the D-R New Testament. His book sold widely because it was a way for Catholics to have a Catholic New Testament without raising suspicions against them. Fulke’s edition was published multiple times if I am not mistaken. It is through Fulke’s book that I - much like the Catholic Recusants who suffered persecution in the 16th and 17th century - first became acquainted with the original Douay-Rheims New Testament. And Catholics, ironically, were not Fulke’s only target: http://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/William_Fulke Fulke’s was not the last Protestant edition of a Douay-Rheims Bible either. In 1834, a Protestant edition of the Rheims New Testament was put out by Leavitt of New York. Last year I purchased a Protestant version of an updated 1582/1610 Douay-Rheims from this mysterious outfit: http://www.newdouairheimsbible.com/Contact-Us.html Not bad. I like it.
“It took a revision around 1750 to make it decent enough that people would WANT to use it, and even then it deliberately mistranslated words like “repent”.”
False. The translation needed to be modernized - just as the King James Version was in 1769: http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon10.html. The same is true of the D-R. When people buy one today, it is not the 1582/1609 or the 1749. It is almost always the 1899. Personally I like the original Douay Rheims and the 1938 edition of the New Testament from the Douay Bible House best (an edition almost impossible to get).
“So...if an approved translation was needed, and the Catholic Church didn’t sign off on a decent one until 1750, hundreds of years after Tyndale’s excellent translation - what does that tell you?”
Since your premise is wrong, it tells us nothing. The Douay-Rheims was not perfect. Neither was Tyndale’s translation. Both Bibles influenced the KJV, however. People complain about translations all the time. Ever see how NIV devotees go after the ESV and vice versa? If not, look up David Dollins’ post on Paul Cain’s web page on that very topic from about 18 months ago.
“Or, to be more precise, what would that tell an unbiased observer?”
Again, nothing since your premise makes no sense.
And you were still wrong about the Sorbonne index. That won’t change.