Mental Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter rcwitness
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rcwitness

Guest
What books were in the Mentel Bible, and how much resistance/suppose did it receive by the Church?
 
rcwitness said:
Saw that… it’s not specific, right?
Click to expand...
If by that you mean that it doesn’t give us a complete table of contents, then yes, it’s not specific. However, it is a translation of a Vulgate manuscript, and I rather doubt that the translator, who would certainly have known the contents of a Catholic Bible, would have used an incomplete manuscript.
 
DaveBj said:
If by that you mean that it doesn’t give us a complete table of contents, then yes, it’s not specific. However, it is a translation of a Vulgate manuscript, and I rather doubt that the translator, who would certainly have known the contents of a Catholic Bible, would have used an incomplete manuscript.
Click to expand...
Well, that’s what I’m curious about. Was he working with approval, and was his Bible the same 73 books?
 
rcwitness said:
Well, that’s what I’m curious about. Was he working with approval, and was his Bible the same 73 books?
Click to expand...
I can’t speak to the approval issue, but if the exclusion of the Deuterocanonical books was a Reformation Thing, and the fact that the Mentel translation predated the Reformation, and the fact that it was a translation of the Vulgate should mitigate for its being a complete Catholic Bible. The exclusion of the Deuterocanonicals would have raised eyebrows in the late 15th century, and there would have been comment, if they had been excluded. The fact that there is no such comment should be telling.

You might want to trace the history of the exclusion of the Deuterocanonicals, to see when that first happened. Otherwise, all we have is the absence of evidence.
 
DaveBj said:
I can’t speak to the approval issue, but if the exclusion of the Deuterocanonical books was a Reformation Thing, and the fact that the Mentel translation predated the Reformation, and the fact that it was a translation of the Vulgate should mitigate for its being a complete Catholic Bible. The exclusion of the Deuterocanonicals would have raised eyebrows in the late 15th century, and there would have been comment, if they had been excluded. The fact that there is no such comment should be telling.

You might want to trace the history of the exclusion of the Deuterocanonicals, to see when that first happened. Otherwise, all we have is the absence of evidence.
Click to expand...
I’m surprised there is not more information available. But I agree the 73 book Catholic canon most likely comprised his Bible.

From Wiki:

There is ample evidence for the general use of the entire vernacular German Bible in the fifteenth century.[1] In 1466, before Martin Luther was even born,Johannes Mentelin printed the Mentel Bible, a High German vernacular Bible, at Strasbourg. This edition was based on a no-longer-existing fourteenth-century manuscript translation of the Vulgate from the area of Nuremberg. Until 1518, it was reprinted at least 13 times.

Also, was his German of less “quality” than Luther’s? It is suggested that Luther’s translation was a milestone in unifying the German language. Does that mean it was substantially different German than the translation from Nuremburg?

… His first printing of a Bible invernacular language stands out, the so-called Mentelin Bible of 1466, the first attested edition of the full Bible in the German language, translated from the Vulgate, and one of the earliest printed works in German. The Mentelin Bible was the basis for a further thirteen pre-Reformation editions of the Bible (Zainer, Sorg, etc) which appeared in southern Germany before editions of the Luther Bible, based on Hebrew and Greek, from 1522.I don’t doubt that Luther’s translation may have been better or more successful, but why? And did Luther use the Mentel Bible at all? Did Luther’s Bible replace the Mentel? It just seems like there is little mentioned about it, while much credit is given Luther’s.

And again, I’m not trying to criticize Luther’s translation. But rather, curious why the Mentel seems to be dismissed.
 
A passage from the New Advent article on Johannes Mentelin:newadvent.org/cathen/10196a.htm

Of his large printed works, about 30 in number, including at least 35 large folio volumes, the following are the most conspicuous: the Latin edition of the Bibleof 1460, and 1463; the German Bible, about 1466, also the first editions of the writings of*St. Augustine, St. Chrysostom, St. Jerome, Aristotle, Isidore, and the “Canon” of Avicenna.

Still, not much…
 
rcwitness said:
A passage from the New Advent article on Johannes Mentelin:newadvent.org/cathen/10196a.htm

Of his large printed works, about 30 in number, including at least 35 large folio volumes, the following are the most conspicuous: the Latin edition of the Bibleof 1460, and 1463; the German Bible, about 1466, also the first editions of the writings of*St. Augustine, St. Chrysostom, St. Jerome, Aristotle, Isidore, and the “Canon” of Avicenna.

Still, not much…
Click to expand...
The Wiki has a bit more info.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Mentelin

I wonder if the Archdiocese of Strasbourg might have more information on him and his works? (No “English” button :()

alsace.catholique.fr/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top