"Battle for the Bible"

[MaryD7]

Our local PBS is airing this show tomorrow: Secrets of the Dead - Battle for the Bible
pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_bible/index.html

Has anybody seen this program yet? Any thoughts, reactions, or comments?

 

[Crumpy]

What has the Reformation produced?

How religious is Europe today?

I think that the whole reformation simply ingrained suspicion into Christianity that has been very destructive. Muslims can quote anti-Catholics to criticize not only Catholicism but Christianity itself.

The battle over the Bible was the beginning and basis of a battle over power and land and wealth.

Not only that, but I think it distracted the Catholic Church from conversion of the Muslims. And, look where we are today from that.

 

[MaryD7]

…I think that the whole reformation simply ingrained suspicion into Christianity that has been very destructive.

But how much of this suspicion is indeed warranted?

I watched the show last night and I was relieved to find that it was not a Catholic Church bashing expose’. But I do have a few questions and I would like candid answers, not answers that will necessarily defend the Church.

1. What was the Church’s reasoning behind not allowing translation of the Bible? Was it for spiritual, political or self-serving reasons?
2. The program stated that when the Bible started to be translated from the original Greek and Hebrew texts it was found the texts varied greatly from way that the Church had been interpreting it for the masses for 1000 years. In fact, the way the Church had interpreted it could be construed as pretty self-serving. Why weren’t the original texts used? Again, was this spiritual, political or self-serving?

(As you can tell by my questions, my knowledge of Church history is woefully lacking.)

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

The Catholic Church needs to be careful regarding faulty translations. Stating that the Catholic Church did not allow English translations of the Bible is a myth:

newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm#english

1) Pre-Wyclifite Translations

• The West Midland Psalter, probably written between 1340 and 1350; some attribute it to William of Shoreham. It contains the whole Psalter, eleven canticles, and the Athanasian Creed, and is preserved in three manuscripts (cd. Bülbring, “The Earliest Complete English Prose Psalter”, I, London, 1891).
• Richard Rolle’s (d. 1349) English version of the “Commentary on the Psalms” by Peter Lombard spread in numerous copies throughout the country (cf. Bramley, “The Psalter and Certain Canticles…by Richard Rolle of Hampole”, Oxford, 1884).
• Here belongs a version of the Apocalypse with a commentary; the latter was for some time attributed to Wyclif, but is really a version of a Norman commentary from the first half of the thirteenth century. Its later revisions agree so well with the Wyclif version that they must have been utilized in its preparation.
• The Pauline Epistles were rendered in the North Midlands or the North; they are still extant in a manuscript of the fifteenth century.
• Another version of the Pauline Epistles, and of the Epistles of St. James and St. Peter (only the first) originated in the south of England somewhere in the fourteenth century (cf. the edition of A. C. Paves, Cambridge, 1904).
• A scholar of the north of England translated also commentaries on the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke.
• Several manuscripts preserve to us a version of the Books of Acts and the Catholic Epistles, either separately or in conjunction with a fragmentary Southern version of the Pauline Epistles and part of the Catholic Epistles, mentioned under (5). Cf. A. C. Paues, “A Fourteenth-Century English Biblical Version”, Cambridge, 1904.
• Besides these versions of particular books of Holy Scripture, there existed numerous renderings of the Our Father, the Ten Commandments, the Life, Passion, and Resurrection of Christ, and of the parts read on Sundays and Feastdays in the Mass. In general, if we may believe the testimony of Archbishop Cranmer, Sir Thomas More, Foxe the martyrologist, and the authors of the Preface to the Reims Testament, the whole Bible was to be found in the mother tongue long before John Wyclif was born (cf. “American Ecclesiastical Review”, XXXII, Philadelphia, June, 1905, 594).

 

[MaryD7]

The Catholic Church needs to be careful regarding faulty translations. Stating that the Catholic Church did not allow English translations of the Bible is a myth:

newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm#english

Thank you for that link.

I can tell that I do not have a ‘big picture’ view of this time period. (Maybe somebody can recommend some books.) But I am still wondering about the Church’s responses to the fact that the Bible was being translated. For example, why was Tyndale executed? Who put a bounty on his head? The show last night said that even though it was never proven, it has long been suspected that the Archbishop of England wanted him caught.

The same webpage but further down says this:

"(3) Printed English Bibles

We are now entering the period of printed English Scriptures. France, Spain, Italy, Bohemia, and Holland possessed the Bible in the vernacular before the accession of Henry VIII; in Germany the Scriptures were printed in 1466, and seventeen editions had left the press before the apostasy of Luther. No part of the English Bible was printed before 1525, no complete Bible before 1535, and none in England before 1538.

(a) William Tyndale was the first to avail himself of the new opportunities furnished by the press and the new learning. Tyndale went early to Oxford, thence to Cambridge; he was ordained priest, and professed among the Franciscan Fathers at Greenwich. In 1524 he went to Hamburg and from there to Wittenberg to visit Luther. Assisted by William Roye, like himself an apostate Franciscan from the monastery at Greenwich, he translated the New Testament, and began to have it printed in Cologne in 1525. Driven from Cologne, he went to Worms where he printed 3000 copies, and sent them to England in the early summer of 1526. The fourth edition was printed at Antwerp (1534). In 1530 Tyndale’s Pentateuch was printed, in 1531 his book of Jonas. Between the date of Tyndale’s execution, 6 Oct., 1536, and the year 1550 numerous editions of the New Testament were reprinted, twenty-one of which Francis Fry (Biographical Descriptions of the Editions of the New Testament, 1878) enumerates and describes (see Westcott, “Hist. of the English Bible”, London, 1905)."

What exactly was Tyndale’s crime?

 

[MaryD7]

Thank you for that link.

I can tell that I don’t have a ‘big picture’ view of this time period (maybe somebody can recommend some books.) I still, however have questions regarding the Church’s reactions to the translation of the Bible.

On the same webpage as in the above post it states (with my highlights):

John Purvey, the leader of the Lollard party, is generally assumed to have taken a large part in the work. The style and idiom of the Later Version are far superior to those of the Early, and there can be little doubt as to its popularity among the Wyclifites. But the Lollards soon introduced interpolations of a virulent character into their sacred texts; violence and anarchy set in, and the party came to be regarded as enemies of order and disturbers of society. It is small wonder that the ecclesiastical authorities soon convened in the Synod of Oxford (1408) and forbade the publication and reading of unauthorized vernacular versions of the Scriptures, restricting the permission to read the Bible in the vernacular to versions approved by the ordinary of the place, or, if the case so require, by the provincial council.
(3) Printed English Bibles

We are now entering the period of printed English Scriptures. France, Spain, Italy, Bohemia, and Holland possessed the Bible in the vernacular before the accession of Henry VIII; in Germany the Scriptures were printed in 1466, and seventeen editions had left the press before the apostasy of Luther. No part of the English Bible was printed before 1525, no complete Bible before 1535, and none in England before 1538.

(a) William Tyndale was the first to avail himself of the new opportunities furnished by the press and the new learning. Tyndale went early to Oxford, thence to Cambridge; he was ordained priest, and professed among the Franciscan Fathers at Greenwich. In 1524 he went to Hamburg and from there to Wittenberg to visit Luther. Assisted by William Roye, like himself an apostate Franciscan from the monastery at Greenwich, he translated the New Testament, and began to have it printed in Cologne in 1525. Driven from Cologne, he went to Worms where he printed 3000 copies, and sent them to England in the early summer of 1526. The fourth edition was printed at Antwerp (1534). In 1530 Tyndale’s Pentateuch was printed, in 1531 his book of Jonas. Between the date of Tyndale’s execution, 6 Oct., 1536, and the year 1550 numerous editions of the New Testament were reprinted, twenty-one of which Francis Fry (Biographical Descriptions of the Editions of the New Testament, 1878) enumerates and describes (see Westcott, “Hist. of the English Bible”, London, 1905).

From the way it was described on the show, and please correct me if I am wrong, the Church officials felt threatened by the loss of power that it had over the common folk, so that is why they moved to shut down the translating. They meant business because Tyndale had to go into hiding. Somebody (it has long been rumored but never proven that it was the Archbishop of England) put a bounty on information to Tyndale’s whereabouts and when he was found, Tyndale was brought back to England and put into solitary confinement for over a year before being executed. What exactly was Tyndale’s crime? The fact that he was involved in the translation and publication of unapproved Bible versions?

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

It appears that he was indeed condemned for issuing an unauthorized edition of the Bible:

catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0212fea3.asp
Tyndale's Heresy:

So what was the real reason William Tyndale was condemned? Was translating the Bible into English actually illegal? The answer is no. The law that was passed in 1408 was in reaction to another infamous translator, John Wycliff. Wycliff had produced a translation of the Bible that was corrupt and full of heresy. It was not an accurate rendering of sacred Scripture.

Both the Church and the secular authorities condemned it and did their best to prevent it from being used to teach false doctrine and morals. Because of the scandal it caused, the Synod of Oxford passed a law in 1408 that prevented any unauthorized translation of the Bible into English and also forbade the reading of such unauthorized translations.

It is a fact usually ignored by Protestant historians that many English versions of the Scriptures existed before Wycliff, and these were authorized and perfectly legal (see Where We Got the Bible by Henry Graham, chapter 11, “Vernacular Scriptures Before Wycliff”). Also legal would be any future authorized translations. And certainly reading these translations was not only legal but also encouraged. All this law did was to prevent any private individual from publishing his own translation of Scripture without the approval of the Church.

A separate question to ask is should the state enforce its theological viewpoints on its populace? That’s clearly not the case in the US. It was the case in England at that time.

As far as the Catholic Church feeling that it may lose its grip of power? I don’t see the evidence particularly since they passed laws requiring people to buy English translations of the Bible:
Tyndale's Heresy:

First, it saw no real need for a new English translation of the Scriptures at this time. In fact, booksellers were having a hard time selling the print editions of the Bible that they already had. Sumptuary laws had to be enacted to force people into buying them.

 

[MaryD7]

Thank you for taking the time to respond to me.

Reading from your source above conflicts with the portrayal shown on this show. In particular, Wycliff went straight to the Hebrew and Greek texts, not the Latin, for his translation and this is where the problems started. Words could be translated one way or another.

As for selling the Scriptures in the venacular, the show last night said that after the printing press was invented they couldn’t keep up with the demand. But, of course, this was version that the Catholic Church condemned.

 

[MaryD7]

Another thought … what I find really striking is that these men believed so much in what they were doing that they literally put their own lives on the line. These were learned members of the church, not a bunch of rabblerousers.

 

[Pax]

Another thought … what I find really striking is that these men believed so much in what they were doing that they literally put their own lives on the line. These were learned members of the church, not a bunch of rabblerousers.

Wycliff was not really qualified to do a translation of scripture. Moreover, his translation was said to be riddled with errors. Likewise, Tyndale’s original translation had many errors as well. You won’t get that information from Protestant sources, but respected members of the Church at the time attested to the deficiencies. I am always curious why any one person thinks themselves capable of translating the bible all by themselves. Only one person ever did it successfully and that was St. Jerome.

Jerome was qualified to do it and Jerome was commissioned to do it. Unauthorized versions by less than qualified people will bring disastrous results. Reliable modern bible translations are done by teams of scholars and while they use original Greek and Hebrew they also lean on Jerome’s Latin Vulgate translation. Most accusations against the Church concerning the bible are absolute nonsense.

 

[Mintaka]

The problem wasn’t so much that Wycliffe translated stuff differently than the Church did, or from different sources. There were other translators who went direct to the Hebrew and Greek – St. Jerome, most notably!

The problem was that Wycliffe’s translation was terrible (even the King James Bible translators agreed with this assessment) and that Wycliffe was not interested in fixing it or even discussing it with the Church.

Interestingly, Wycliffe at first got a lot of support from the secular English government, as he had theories that all church property should belong to the king and the secular government.

At this point, he started preaching all sort of heretical theology, which the church authorities tried in various ways to stop. But as today, a lot of theologians just ignore their bishop and Rome.

Then he sent a lot of lay preachers out, and they helped start the Peasants’ Revolt.

Wycliffe didn’t realllllly get into any trouble until after the Peasants’ Revolt, when he started talking against transubstantiation. Then none of his friends liked him anymore. But he died a perfectly normal death.

 

[MaryD7]

The show was more of an overview with many details left out. I forget what they said about Wycliff’s translation but I do remember that William Tyndale was a gifted linguist, and believed that the Scriptures should be available to the common man. Tyndale went to the Church first with his project but the Church was very uncomfortable with the Bible in the venacular. Tyndale continued with his quest and this ultimately led to his death by execution.

Like I said, this show condemned no one. It was more like a chronological outline of the events. It did arouse my curiosity about what was happening elsewhere in the world and with the Church and how that also played into the events as they unfolded.

Does anybody have any book recommendations?

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

MaryD7:

Does anybody have any book recommendations?

You might want to consider some of the references indicated from this web site:

users.binary.net/polycarp/burning.html

What the article says about Tyndale:

After the 14th century when English finally became the popular language of England, vernacular Bibles were used as vehicles for heretical propaganda. John Wycliffe, a dissentient priest, translated the Bible into English. Unfortunately his secretary, John Purvey, included a heretical prologue, as noted by St. Thomas More. Later William Tyndale translated the Bible into English complete with prologue and footnotes condemning Church doctrines and teachings. [2] St. Thomas More commented that searching for errors in the Tyndale Bible was similar to searching for water in the sea. Even King Henry VIII in 1531 condemned the Tyndale Bible as a corruption of Scripture. In the words of King Henry’s advisors: “the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people, and not be suffered to go abroad among his subjects.” [4] As food for thought, if the Wycliffe or Tyndale Bibles were so good, why do Protestants today not use them as they do the King James Bible?

REFERENCES

[1] Warren H. Carroll, The Building of Christendom (Christendom College Press, 1987) pp. 359,371,385.
[2] The Jerome Biblical Commentary (Prentice-Hall, 1968) Vol. II, pp. 586-588.
[3] Henry G. Graham, Where We Got The Bible (TAN Books, 1977) p. 99.
[4] Ibid., pp. 128,130.
[5] Ibid., p. 129.

Thomas More’s writings regarding Tyndale:

thomasmorestudies.org/library_1.html#dialogue

books.google.com/books?vid=0YRmzwOqp__XEV4djw&id=PZFUn8YveLMC&pg=PA191&dq=%2B%22John+Lyly%22&as_brr=1

 

[ElizabethAnne]

I saw the commercials for this show and was quite saddened. The ads, at least, are against the Catholic Church. It makes it very clear that the producers think the Church was power-hungry and just out to control people.

That is also made pretty clear by the PBS Web site.

The translation of the Bible into the vulgar – the language of everyday people – was a key element in the series of reforms within the Catholic Church that eventually resulted in what we know as the Protestant Reformation.

In the 14th century, the Roman Catholic Church was Western Europe’s undisputed religious authority; and its central rituals – the Mass and Communion – the only legitimate pathway to salvation. The pope and the clergy held enormous power, and secular authorities looked to the Church for legitimation. Key to the Church’s power was the fact that its rituals were conducted in Latin, a language inaccessible to the uneducated faithful. The public was completely dependent on the priesthood for access to salvation – only through mysterious rituals conducted in an unfamiliar tongue could they conduct their spiritual lives.

pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_bible/