Chained Bible Response Needed

[WanderAimlessly]

But I think he’s trying to make the point that the Church didn’t want the common people to read it for themselves.— Actually, that makes sense, considering what has happened over the past 500 yrs.

No, it does not make sense. Protestants use the “didn’t want the common people to read it for themselves” as one of the revisionist excuses for justifying the “Reformation”. It is not historical in any way.

 

[VociMike]

How can I answer this:** The “church” mandated that the Bibles chained to the rostrums were in LATIN, a language really known only to the church hierarchy so it’s “availability”, to the limited degree it might have been, was irrelevant to the masses and even most of the monks.**

Why would the Church have bibles chained to the rostrums if they were only for the hierarchy? Why not have them locked away in back rooms? And as to the notion that monks didn’t know Latin, that is just grotesque ignorance.

And then there were all those stained glass windows, statues, mosaics, paintings, tapestries and other artworks depicting the Gospel, but they were all in Latin too, so the masses couldn’t understand them either.

 

[NotWorthy]

If you looked at the typical correspondence of the day, you would find that the typical scholar knew about the bible rather well. People often quoted the bible when they wrote letters to one another. They had to have been able to read the Latin Bibles to have been able to do this.

 

[RNRobert]

I have a book that has two writings of St Patrick: His Confession and Letter to Coroticus. They are packed with Scripture quotations. So the idea that the Catholic Church wanted to keep the Scriptures away from people is ludicrous.

 

[Mintaka]

Chained books show up in both Terry Pratchett’s Diskworld and in the Harry Potter series, mostly because old English university and school libraries are full of 'em, and so the writers thought they were fun and cool.

But I guess fictional wizards’ libraries are not always the thing to mention…

 

[colliric]

How can I answer this:** The “church” mandated that the Bibles chained to the rostrums were in LATIN, a language really known only to the church hierarchy so it’s “availability”, to the limited degree it might have been, was irrelevant to the masses and even most of the monks.**

Reason:

It cost, inflation adjusted about $100,000 in modern USD for a bible back then. That is more than the value of a house to us. The fact is the Bible had to be hand written word for word, and in order to lessen the workload on it, they kept it in a language still spoken widely in those days rather than spend more resources translating it into other tounges, which would have added to the cost of the bible, I speculate it may have had to be something like $200,000 to account for the practical doubling of the workload.

That is the only reason why there was about 1 public(most of them were place outside the church or in the town square, etc) bible per townfull of people. It simply would have required a far bigger effort than the church could have possibly done to put more copies of it out there(especially copies in vernicular tounges). The fact is monks had to be payed for their copying service and because of the lack of printing it was $100,000(in our dollars). A very hefty fee even for an entire community of people.

 

[patrick457]

Chained books show up in both Terry Pratchett’s Diskworld and in the Harry Potter series, mostly because old English university and school libraries are full of 'em, and so the writers thought they were fun and cool.

But I guess fictional wizards’ libraries are not always the thing to mention…

Plus, I’ve heard that the Vatican Library’s Books are kept chained in ‘benches’ (actually tables with benches attached)…Does that mean we’re not allowed to read those Books?

No. Mostly those who want to read a book should read it in place. They could also borrow the books out, but they also need to take the chain with them to remind them that the books were not theirs. The Pope himself might write a recall notice if important texts were kept away too long. One could also lose one’s privilege for climbing over the tables instead of walking around them or for other offenses.

They were chained since they were valuable, not because they’re supposed to be untouchable.

 

[Spirithound]

How can I answer this:** The “church” mandated that the Bibles chained to the rostrums were in LATIN, a language really known only to the church hierarchy so it’s “availability”, to the limited degree it might have been, was irrelevant to the masses and even most of the monks.**

With this little story: The opening of a new church was a huge deal back in the Middle Ages. The carpenters and the masons and all the best craftsmen of the town all worked together to get the church ready. The stained glass artisans created beautiful scenes for the windows, and the glaziers installed them. The blacksmiths made the doors, put the hinges on, and the carpenters installed them. The stonecutters prepared the stones for the floor and the masons laid them. Of course, sometimes the stained glass workers were the glaziers and the carpenters were the blacksmiths. But the pride and joy of each church was their Bible. The Bible was prepared, written, illuminated, gilded, and bound by the local monastery. Each Bible took over a year to produce, and there was huge fanfare when it was finally ready. There was a huge procession from the monastery to the church, including the bishop, all the priests, deacons, and the entire town. The culmination of the day’s festivities was the chaining ceremony. At the church’s inaugural Mass, the Bible was processed to the altar, behind the crucifix of course, and laid on the lectern. After the Gospel was read, and just before the homily, the bishop had the honour of formally chaining the Bible to the stand.
But don’t worry, he always gave the key to the guy who could read.

 

[Spirithound]

My understanding is that “vernacular” tongues were not nearly as standardized in the old days as they are now. Every sub-region in England or France or Italy would need its own variant translation to be understandable to the locals. Which just seems impractical.

Yup, that’s right! Although, at some point, the capital’s dialect did take over

 

[Michael_Francis]

Question Answered. Thread Closed.