How long have Catholics kept Bibles in their homes

[SeanF1989]

Please forgive my ignorance but I am unsure on when Catholics began having Bibles at home for personal use

I do know that the whole “Catholics weren’t allowed to read the Bible” stuff is just drivel.

 

[johnthebaptist1]

I just want you to know that we have had a bible in our home since I can remember. I rather read the Bible,than a just a book.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

My Irish Grandparents had a large “home” Bible (with pages to record births, First Communions, deaths, etc.) with a picture of Pope Pius IX in the front, that dated from the 1890’s. But I’m sure Catholics had Bibles at home well before that.

 

[Peggy_in_Burien]

Catholics have had Bibles in their homes since Gutenberg printed the Vulgate up on his new-fangled moveable type, printing press in the 1450s.

Of course, at first, only wealthy people could afford books of anytype. By the time my Great-grandparents married in the1870s, they had a family bible (held now by my Mom). My great-grandfather had a grammar school education (interupted by the War Between the States), and could read and write. My great-grandmother could not read.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Long before Vatican II. My grandmother had one.

 

[Khalid]

The Haydock Bible was printed in the 1820s.

My Coptic Orthodox-in-name secular mother had an illuminated Bible in the actual Coptic tongue that was at least 200 years old, about eighteen by twelve inches bound in wood with a leather “sheet” that folded over it when closed, and a Bible in Arabic that was at least 100.

In these Bible matters, I’ve received the idea that Orthodox - especially secular monophysites who don’t believe it in countries where Christians are persecuted - are even less likely to own the Bible than Catholics.

I would say, “ever since the family could afford it”. If they were rich, they probably had manuscripts all the way back a millennium.

 

[Elisabeth51]

My Coptic Orthodox-in-name secular mother had an illuminated Bible in the actual Coptic tongue that was at least 200 years old, about eighteen by twelve inches bound in wood with a leather “sheet” that folded over it when closed, and a Bible in Arabic that was at least 100.

Wow!! Awesome thing to have and be able to see! I have friends who are Coptic Orthodox, they have at least four Bibles in their home–all Arabic, no antiques though.

 

[Elisabeth51]

My Coptic Orthodox-in-name secular mother had an illuminated Bible in the actual Coptic tongue that was at least 200 years old, about eighteen by twelve inches bound in wood with a leather “sheet” that folded over it when closed, and a Bible in Arabic that was at least 100.

.

Wow!! Awesome thing to have and be able to see! I have friends who are Coptic Orthodox, they have at least four Bibles in their home–all Arabic, no antiques though.

I agree there have been Bibles in homes since they were printed, although only the wealthy at first had any books.

 

[TimothyH]

Please forgive my ignorance but I am unsure on when Catholics began having Bibles at home for personal use

I do know that the whole “Catholics weren’t allowed to read the Bible” stuff is just drivel.

Sadly, Catholics have been discouraged from reading the Bible in the past. Many Catholics bristle at the thought, but it is not drivel.

It was one of the Church’s reactions to Protestantism and the way inwhich many were interpreting scripture on their own, outside of the framework of orthodox Catholic intepretation, and quite frankly, coming up with some pretty whacky ideas.

Take Romans 10:9 for example.

***…for, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. *(Romans 10:9)

People were hearing ideas like salvation by faith alone and then reading Romans 10:9 and concluding that Sola Fide was a correct doctrine. Because of faulty interpretations like this, many were being pulled away from the Church. Fast forward a few hundred years and it is more true now than ever.

The result is that in some places and at some times, as a reaction to faulty intepretation and in an attempt to keep people from leaving the true Church, some in the Church have suggested that scripture should be left to the “Experts” and this was communicated to the laity as a recommendation against reading the Bible.

Based on some of the stuff I hear coming out of Evangelical and non-denominational Churches here in the deep south, I wish some of them would stop reading the Bible.

-Tim-

 

[1ke]

Please forgive my ignorance but I am unsure on when Catholics began having Bibles at home for personal use

I do know that the whole “Catholics weren’t allowed to read the Bible” stuff is just drivel.

How long have there been bibles?

That long.

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

I don’t own a Bible.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I don’t own a Bible.

These days there is the Internet, so it isn’t as necessary as in the past.

 

[aicirt]

How long have there been bibles?

That long.

Start with the Jews and the Old Testament. How old is their oldest scroll? Then about 400AD, the gospels were gathered into the New Testament. All writings and copying were done by hand by religious. Monks assigned to the task could take 20 or so years to complete a Bible which not only consisted of beautiful letters but lovely art work too. Gutenberg printed the first bible, a Catholic one, in 1500 or so.

Up until the time of the printing press, any manuscript was very costly. The vast majority who could read were the wealthy. But the Bible did exist in the paintings and stain glass of the magnificient cathedrals of Europe. Picture yourself as an illiterate peasant going to a church. You’d be walking into heaven on earth amid all the gorgeous art work. Just by looking at the paintings and stainglass and the statues, you’d be “reading” the Bible.

And if you attended Mass everyday for three years, you would have heard the Bible through the Epistle and the Gospel.

 

[TimothyH]

These days there is the Internet, so it isn’t as necessary as in the past.

There are few things in life more sublime than opening a high quality Bible and reading the written word of God.

supple leather cover… parchment paper… sewn binding… gilded edges… marker ribbon… maybe even a zippered cover with a gold miraculous medal on the zipper pull… a quiet place without distraction… just you and God… God speaking to you from the pages as you read…

Call it Lectio if you want, but I don’t think you can get that, or it is very difficult to do, with a computer screen.

There is just something about the book itself, even when it sits on the coffee table, which claims the space for God. Walk into a room with a computer and it’s like, , eh, whatever. But walk into a room with a bible on the table and one knows exactly what it is - the written word of God. Put a Bible on the table as you sit in the coffee shop and you have instantly claimed that coffee shop for God. You will get smiles and you will ge dirty looks, but very few who see it will have no reaction at all.

There is just something about the book itself. My Bible is one of my most cherished posessions.

-Tim-

 

[triumphguy]

My grandparents had Douay Rheims from the 1800s.

I too love bibles. There is nothing more satisfying than a well made bible.

 

[sulkow82]

Sadly, Catholics have been discouraged from reading the Bible in the past. Many Catholics bristle at the thought, but it is not drivel.

It was one of the Church’s reactions to Protestantism and the way inwhich many were interpreting scripture on their own, outside of the framework of orthodox Catholic intepretation, and quite frankly, coming up with some pretty whacky ideas.

Take Romans 10:9 for example.

I think it is a bit different then that. People were permitted to read the Bible. If this were not true, then the Douey Bible would never have been commissioned. I, however, have heard people claim that when they were growing up the Bible was considered so sacred that only the Priest could read it. To me this seems more like a regional/ cultural thing.

Picture yourself as an illiterate peasant going to a church. You’d be walking into heaven on earth amid all the gorgeous art work. Just by looking at the paintings and stainglass and the statues, you’d be “reading” the Bible.

True. This ability to look at the stained glass was also a conversation starter. Imagine the same peasants then take their children to Confession. While waiting before or afterwards, they would walk around and the kids would ask questions about the images. Even back then, kids liked to look at pictures.

And if you attended Mass everyday for three years, you would have heard the Bible through the Epistle and the Gospel.

Hence why the Church encourages this even today.

There are few things in life more sublime than opening a high quality Bible and reading the written word of God.

supple leather cover… parchment paper… sewn binding… gilded edges… marker ribbon… maybe even a zippered cover with a gold miraculous medal on the zipper pull… a quiet place without distraction… just you and God… God speaking to you from the pages as you read…

Call it Lectio if you want, but I don’t think you can get that, or it is very difficult to do, with a computer screen.

Yes, Lectio Divina is a wonderful “place” to be. I personally have only been able to do this with a beautiful prayer Bible or the stained glass windows in a local Church (a local Church has windows showing the Stations of the Cross).

There is just something about the book itself, even when it sits on the coffee table, which claims the space for God. Walk into a room with a computer and it’s like, , eh, whatever.

True dat!!! The online Bibles is great for apologetics, but to “rest in the Spirit” nothing beats a book (however, an icon will also work).
Another thing which I sometimes do is “random reading.” Friends have told me they like to open a novel to any random place and just start reading. Try doing this with a Bible. You get everything from deep spiritual discussions to practical advice. All of it the Word of God.

 

[batman1973]

These days there is the Internet, so it isn’t as necessary as in the past.

I use the internet quite a bit to look up passages of the Bible, but, sometimes, it’s good to “thumb through” the printed Word.

 

[domandcarols]

My grandma had her own when she was a child. Lol

 

[Khalid]

The Haydock Bible was printed in the 1820s.

My Coptic Orthodox-in-name secular mother had an illuminated Bible in the actual Coptic tongue that was at least 200 years old, about eighteen by twelve inches bound in wood with a leather “sheet” that folded over it when closed, and a Bible in Arabic that was at least 100.

In these Bible matters, I’ve received the idea that Orthodox - especially secular monophysites who don’t believe it in countries where Christians are persecuted - are even less likely to own the Bible than Catholics.

I would say, “ever since the family could afford it”. If they were rich, they probably had manuscripts all the way back a millennium.

Now that I’ve actually looked up Coptic Bibles, I think that may have been an actual, 1500-year old manuscript copy, as I know it was not complete (it was missing pages), it was hand-written on some pages, interspersed with hand-drawn illustrations, on very old paper (or papyrus? parchment?) in a Coptic dialect I couldn’t read well, and it was bound in a box-like form, with the leaves stuffed in to a hinged wooden case with leather wrapped around it. I’ve not seen it since I was 14 or 15 years old, though. It was probably 4 inches thick (about twice as big as the Haydock Bible overall, I think) including case, but I have no idea how many pages it was (not numbered).

I wonder what happened to it - I’m sure it was thrown out or burned after my mother died. I bet it was a treasure, now that I think of it - an uncatalogued, ancient manuscript. Probably worth a lot in financial and cultural terms, as, from what I read in the last day, it may have been more extensive than most other Coptic mss.

The Arabic Bible was printed, the “Jesuit Version” of the 1860s.

 

[Khalid]

Start with the Jews and the Old Testament. How old is their oldest scroll? Then about 400AD, the gospels were gathered into the New Testament. All writings and copying were done by hand by religious. Monks assigned to the task could take 20 or so years to complete a Bible which not only consisted of beautiful letters but lovely art work too. Gutenberg printed the first bible, a Catholic one, in 1500 or so.

Up until the time of the printing press, any manuscript was very costly. The vast majority who could read were the wealthy. But the Bible did exist in the paintings and stain glass of the magnificient cathedrals of Europe. Picture yourself as an illiterate peasant going to a church. You’d be walking into heaven on earth amid all the gorgeous art work. Just by looking at the paintings and stainglass and the statues, you’d be “reading” the Bible.

And if you attended Mass everyday for three years, you would have heard the Bible through the Epistle and the Gospel.

The Jews’ oldest scrolls are actually from 950-1010 AD (the Aleppo [960 AD] and Leningrad [1008-9 AD] Codices) unless one counts the fragments of the sectarian Essenes at Qumran. The oldest Bibles - both Old and New Testaments, whether together or separately - are all Greek (Septuagint) translations - the Codices Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus. And then it’s all Greek OT and Greek NT, along with other vernacular (Latin, Slavonic, etc.) translations for another 600 years until the first Hebrew shows up - the Leningrad Codex, which is the basis for the modern Masoretic text and the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, the source of modern Old Testaments.

There’s a reason I mainly use translations from the Vulgate and the Septuagint(s) itself - the Vulgate is more ancient than the modern Hebrew, and the LXX older than the Vulgate! The Dead Sea Scrolls (the oldest Hebrew we have, very fragmentary, from the Essenes at Qumran) often agree with the LXX against the modern, mediaeval Leningrad Codex Hebrew.