Replies

“Since none has ever found a copy, and there is no record of one ever being made, the burden of proof lies on you.”

No. It is one thing to finish a translation and another to request permission to do so. You’re assuming the absence of the former means the latter was never requested.

“I can prove PROTESTANTS made translations. Where is your proof that CATHOLICS did?”

We know Catholic translations of Biblical books were made. We cannot say that there were any made of the entire Bible. We also cannot say that none were made. We can only say none were printed in English until 1582/1609.

“Most of the German translations were not in the vernacular. “
If it was a German translation that means it was the vernacular.

“Nor were they marketed to commoners.”

All of them were. As I noted already: Miriam Usher Chrisman in Conflicting Visions of Reform: German Lay Propaganda Pamphlets, 1519-1530, page 4: “The German Bible, first printed in 1466, went through 14 editions before 1518 *********and was often listed in the inventories taken at the death of ordinary men and women.”********* She goes on to mention: “The overwhelming preponderance of scriptural quotation among the artisans confirms the existence of a strongly established Bible culture at the artisan level well before the Reformation.” (page 11)

“That is why Luther’s translation (a much better translation than previous attempts, marketed to commoners) sold 100,000 copies from one printer alone. The DEMAND was there, but not the SUPPLY.”

No. Luther’s translation borrowed heavily from previous translations. Luther may have been a better writer of German, but he was not an expert in Greek or Hebrew. His translation sold so well because it was the book used by the Lutheran movement. This has been noted by historians for decades and brought into focus in recent years by historian Andrew Gow:

Scholars who acknowledge the wide circulation of vernacular Bibles often argue that they were linguistically inferior, claiming that Luther relied exclusively on the ‘original Greek’ text of the New Testament in his translation (which places more weight on Erasmus’ faulty 1516 edition of the New Testament in Greek and on Luther’s use of it than either can bear, ignores Luther’s reliance on both earlier German translations and the Vulgate,9 and gives him more credit as a philologist than he deserves). Even stronger is the old Protestant-nationalist German claim, couched as linguistic scholarship, that Luther’s German Bible formed or even invented the standard form of early modern German; and a few other lesser ones. In the Microsoft Encarta, one of the main sources from which many students draw their information on such topics, we read “Condemned by the emperor [in 1521], Luther was spirited away by his prince, the elector Frederick the Wise of Saxony, and kept in hiding at Wartburg Castle. There he began his translation of the New Testament from the original Greek into German, a seminal contribution to the development of a standard German language.”10 Yet in 1969, W. B. Lockwood noted that

It has been a common error of criticism to regard the Mentel Bible [1466] as typical of the pre-Luther stage of biblical translation. Recent researches however have shown that the elements of Luther’s style are already present in a large measure in the manuscript literature of the fourteenth and especially the fifteenth centuries.

“The KJV did bring in some deliberate mistranslations, per Catholic belief, because King James had noted, “No Bishop, No King” - if congregations were free to pick their pastors, might they not soon decide to pick their government?”

The KJV’s “deliberate mistranslations” have everything to do with governmental control of religion and nothing to do with the Catholic faith. The Anglicans invented their own via media theology and that is what the KJV supports.

“I’ve read Tyndale’s translation from 1526 to modern congregations, and no one blinked an eye. They assumed it was a modern translation. Nearly 500 years later, it still reads well.”

Maybe – if you read it TO them. Much the same happens with the original Douay Rheims as well. What would happen, however, if you had that congregation READ Tyndale’s New Testament as it was actually printed?

“Saul yet brethynge out threatnynges and slaughter against the disciples of the lorde went vnto the hye preste and desired of hym letter to damascon to the sinagoges: that yf be founde eny of this waye whether they wer men or wemen he might brynge them bounde vnto Jerusalem.”

Now, I choose that passage completely at random.

Here is how the original Douay-Rheims New Testament put it:

“And Saul as yet breathing forth threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of our Lord came to the high priest, and asked letters of him vnto Damascus to the fynagogs, that if he had found any men and vvomen of this vvay, he might bring them bound vnto Jerusalem.”

Which one is more readable? The answer is that they’re both readable – especially for the people of their times. The D-R is more easily understood in its original spelling than Tyndale’s but that is because English – by that time – was quickly becoming standardized in spelling and grammar. And, yes, there are several passages of the original D-R which are very difficult for modern readers to understand. I think many modern readers would struggle with Tyndale’s spelling in general. So?

“Thank you for the honest and accurate summary of Catholic belief about vernacular translations.”

I offered none. Why do you make things up I never said? Do Protestants believe it is wrong to lie?

“Do I REALLY believe it is good for commoners to read the Word of God, and see what it says for themselves, knowing they might interpret it badly? YES! A thousand times, YES! The Jews of Jesus’ time did. Jesus cited scripture repeatedly.”

Yes, Jesus did so - authoritatively. Jesus was not a “commoner”. You do realize that, right?

“Paul wrote, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.””

Nothing in there even remotely suggests that St. Paul was urging people to interpret scripture on their own as if they were authorities. St. Paul taught authoritatively. He was commissioned by Christ and the Church. And don’t forget, what St. Paul wrote was read out in Church and taught by those he left behind in authority.

“Or in Tyndale’s translation, “For all scripture given by inspiration of God, is profitable to teach, to improve, to inform, and to instruct in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, and prepared unto all good works.””

That is not really Tyndale’s translation. This is Tyndale’s translation:

“For all scripture geven by inspiracion of god is profitable to teache to improve to informe and to instruct in reighteousness that the man of god maye be perfet and prepared vnto all good works.”

And here it is in the 1582 Douay Rheims NT:

“All Scripture inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to argue, to correct, to inftruct in iuftice: that the man of God may be perfect, inftructed to euery good vvorke.”

Again, we see the original Douay Rheims is at least as intelligible as Tyndale’s Bible.

“You have done a fine, 2 sentence job of showing the difference between the Catholic and Protestant view of scripture:”

Yes, I have – by simply asking the obvious: Do you think God wants man to “just make up new interpretations of the Bible?” And apparently you do. That means you cannot believe in truth. You’re a relativist. Thanks for proving what so many of us already knew about Protestantism.