only priests and monks could read the Bible in the middle ages?

[rayne89]

My daughter is homeschooled. Once a week she takes classes through a Christian homeschool group I belong to. Children of many denominations attend.

In her history class today she said she was learning about monks and monastaries in the middle ages. I asked her what she learned and she talked about how the monks copied the Bible by hand (which she already knew) and they carried prayer books on their belts. I asked her if there was anything else. She said in the middle ages only priests and monks were allowed to read the Bible others could be killed or persecuted for reading the Bible.

I was worried about it this kind of thing once she mentioned monks and monastaries because there are quite a few protestants in this group. She said the teacher asked how many were Catholic in the class. My daughter said several children raised their hand.

Before I address this with her teacher is there any shred of truth to the statement she made?

 

[estesbob]

My daughter is homeschooled. Once a week she takes classes through a Christian homeschool group I belong to. Children of many denominations attend.

In her history class today she said she was learning about monks and monastaries in the middle ages. I asked her what she learned and she talked about how the monks copied the Bible by hand (which she already knew) and they carried prayer books on their belts. I asked her if there was anything else. She said in the middle ages only priests and monks were allowed to read the Bible others could be killed or persecuted for reading the Bible.

I was worried about it this kind of thing once she mentioned monks and monastaries because there are quite a few protestants in this group. She said the teacher asked how many were Catholic in the class. My daughter said several children raised their hand.

Before I address this with her teacher is there any shred of truth to the statement she made?

The part about priests and monks reading the Bible is partially true as Bibles were scarce and written in Latin. Most of the people at that time were illiterate and the only exposure they could get to Scripture was at Mass. So it was not a matter of them not being allowed but of them not being able.

The part about being killed or persecuted for reading the Bible is your typical Protestant propaganda.

 

[rayne89]

The part about being killed or persecuted for reading the Bible is your typical Protestant propaganda.

Does anyone have an authorative source to refute the outlandish claim the teacher is making?

 

[LilyM]

Does anyone have an authorative source to refute the outlandish claim the teacher is making?

For one thing Gutenberg’s Bible - the first ever printed for mass distribution in 1455 - was Catholic (more than 60 years prior to Luther’s split with the Church and the Reformation).

Gutenberg wasn’t killed or condemned in any way, nor anyone who possessed any of his Bibles! And anyone with a bit of money could buy one.

And from wikipedia (an independent if not perfect source) we can see there were numerous translations of all or part of the Bible into English alone in the Middle Ages, let alone other European languages - such were neither banned nor anyone harmed in their production or distribution! I quote:

"A number of Old English Bible translations (pre 1066) were prepared in medieval England, translations of parts of the Bible into the Old English Language.

Many of these translations were in fact glosses, prepared and circulated in connection with the Latin Bible that was standard in Western Christianity at the time, for the purpose of assisting clerics whose grasp of Latin was imperfect. Old English literature is remarkable for containing a number of incomplete Bible translations that were not glosses and that were meant to be circulated independently.

Known translations:

Aldhelm (b. 639 d. 25 May 709) is thought to have written an Old English translation of the Psalms, although this is disputed.

Caedmon is mentioned by Bede as one who sang poems in Old English based on the Bible stories, but he was not involved in translation per se.

A translation of the Gospel of John into Old English by the Venerable Bede, which he is said to have prepared shortly before his death around the year 735. This translation is lost; we know of its existence from Cuthbert’s account of Bede’s death. [1]

The Vespasian Psalter [2], an interlinear gloss found in a manuscript of the Book of Psalms. The gloss was prepared around 850. This gloss is in the Mercian dialect.

Eleven other 9th century glosses of the Psalms are known including Eadwine’s Canterbury Psalter [3]

King Alfred had a number of passages of the Bible circulated in the vernacular in around 900. These included passages from the Ten Commandments and the Pentateuch, which he prefixed to a code of laws he promulgated around this time. Alfred is also said to have directed the Book of Psalms to have been translated into Old English. Many scholars believe that the fifty Psalms in Old English that are found in the Paris Psalter [4] represent Alfred’s translation.

Between 950 and 970, Aldred added a gloss in the Northumbrian dialect of Old English (the Northumbrian Gloss on the Gospels) to the Lindisfarne Gospels as well as a forward describing who wrote and decorated it.
the Lord’s Prayer - Suae ðonne iuih gie bidde fader urer ðu arð ðu bist in heofnum + in heofnas; sie gehalgad noma ðin; to-cymeð ric ðin. sie willo ðin suae is in heofne J in eorðo. hlaf userne oferwistlic sel us to dæg. J forgef us scylda usra suae uoe forgefon scyldgum usum. J ne inlæd usih in costunge ah gefrig usich from yfle

At around the same time, a priest named Farman wrote a gloss on the Gospel of Matthew that is preserved in a manuscript called the Rushworth Gospels. [5]

In approximately 990, a full and freestanding version of the four Gospels in idiomatic Old English appeared, in the West Saxon dialect; these are known as the Wessex Gospels. Seven manuscript copies of this translation have survived; they apparently had some currency.

This version gives the most familiar Old English version of Matthew 6:9–13, the Lord’s Prayer:
Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum, si þin nama gehalgod. To becume þin rice, gewurþe ðin willa, on eorðan swa swa on heofonum. Urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg, and forgyf us ure gyltas, swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum. And ne gelæd þu us on costnunge, ac alys us of yfele. Soþlice.

At about the same time as the Wessex Gospels, a priest of Dorsetshire named Ælfric produced an independent translation of the Pentateuch with Joshua and Judges.

The Caedmon manuscript which was initially ascribed to Caedmon, was written between 700-1000. The extant manuscript was copied about 1000. It includes Biblical material in vernacular verses.

In 1066, the Norman conquest of England marked the beginning of the end of the Old English language and initiated profound changes in its vocabulary. The project of translating the Bible into Old English gradually ended after that process began. We then enter the period of change from Old English to Middle English, with concurrent efforts for Bible translations in that language."

 

[Hesychios]

Does anyone have an authorative source to refute the outlandish claim the teacher is making?

The burden of proof is on the person making such a claim. The reason is that if no such thing happened, there would be no historical record of it, or historical condemnation or historical defense of the practice.

There would in fact be nothing. The person making the accusation needs to find evidence this is so. Unfortunately most people learn things from second hand sources they trust, and those sources are not always accurate pieces of scholarship in themselves.

If we found a shelfworn book printed in 1907 with such nonsense in it we might take it as authoritative just because it is so old, but in church time that is like yesterday, and all those people were not any more immune to exaggerating and spinning than people today. So someone during the 30 years war (in a highly charged polemical environment) spins an argument about the Middle Ages, and two hundred years later someone else reads that and spins it a bit more, then in 1907 another author references those two works and adds his own spin we could be reading some really gross misrepresentations by 2007.

Now here we have a poisoned mind teaching wide-eyed kids some nonsense, they may be too young to have any ability to realize they are being told slanted opinion passing for history.

I would take my kids out of such a program, and tell them and the program leader why. It is hard enough to raise kids properly and keep them in the faith without having someone behind your back working against you.

 

[Eileen_T]

I can’t help with an authoritative source, but I recommend the book, CHRIST THE KING-LORD OF HISTORY by Anne W. Carroll.

Another excellent book is, HOW THE IRISH SAVED CIVILIZATION by Thomas Cahill.

Cahill points out in his Introduction

Our history, the history we read in school and refer to in later life, was largely written by Protestant Englishmen and Anglo-Saxon Protestant Americans…

I would recommend you withdraw your daughter from any more “history” lessons.

I suspect she is being taught about the so-called “Trail of Blood”. According to this view, during the Middle Ages the Catholic Church went off into apostasy and idolatry, while all the “Bible-believers” went underground. These “real Christians” formed all the groups that were so viciously persecuted by the “Papists”.

catholic-convert.com/Portals/0/Documents/TrailOfBlood.doc

Dave Armstrong has this to say:

The Church did prohibit vernacular Bible reading in some circumstances because false doctrine was already rampant, such as in 1229 at the Synod of Toulouse.

The truth is, the Church of Rome was not at all opposed to the making of translations of Scripture or to placing them in the hands of the laity under what were deemed proper precautions. It was only judged necessary to see that no unauthorized or corrupt translations got abroad; and even in this matter it would seem that the authorities were not roused to special vigilance till they took alarm at the diffusion of Wycliffite translations in the generation after his death.

. . . To the possession by worthy lay men of licensed translations the Church was never opposed; but to place such a weapon as an English Bible in the hands of men who had no regard for authority, and who would use it without being instructed how to use it properly, was dangerous not only to the souls of those who read, but to the peace and order of the Church.

socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/05/catholic-church-has-always-been-enemy.html

 

[Sabda]

My daughter is homeschooled. Once a week she takes classes through a Christian homeschool group I belong to. Children of many denominations attend.

In her history class today she said she was learning about monks and monastaries in the middle ages. I asked her what she learned and she talked about how the monks copied the Bible by hand (which she already knew) and they carried prayer books on their belts. I asked her if there was anything else. She said in the middle ages only priests and monks were allowed to read the Bible others could be killed or persecuted for reading the Bible.

I was worried about it this kind of thing once she mentioned monks and monastaries because there are quite a few protestants in this group. She said the teacher asked how many were Catholic in the class. My daughter said several children raised their hand.

Before I address this with her teacher is there any shred of truth to the statement she made?

Go to your library and see if they have this lovely little book. I found this in the children’s section in our library. It is an AWESOME kid’s book on the monasteries. It’s written from a non-Catholic perspective. There is one mention of the “cult of the Virgin”. This book is a really good way for kid’s to learn about the monasteries.

As far as website go, here are some good sources that I have spent quite a bit of time browsing though.

Medieval writings

This one takes you right to the Bibles and Saints writings.

Also, the Metropolitan Museum of Art has a wonderful display of Medieval artifacts.

Here is the Metropolitan’s timeline of Europe

Smithsonian Instution of Art has a good exhibit on early Bibles.
quote from this page, emphasize mine:

While the earliest written Christian scriptures were simple, unadorned manuals, by the fifth and sixth centuries opulent materials, such as purple-stained pages and gold and silver inks, were used to confer prestige, and didactic picture cycles appeared on the walls of churches and in books.
Unease concerning idolatry in Jewish, Islamic, and Christian circles led to the destruction of images in the movement known as iconoclasm, which beset the Eastern Church in Byzantium during the eighth and early ninth centuries. **Western Church authorities, however, understood that illustrations could convey the meaning of scripture; around 600, Pope Gregory the Great advised that in images the illiterate read. **

Meanwhile, due in part to enduring Christian tradition, people continued to use distinctive and lavish forms of decoration to celebrate the Word of God. The sacred book became an iconic object, carried ceremonially in procession, read from during the liturgy, and displayed on the high altar.

By the year 1000, illuminated books symbolized the ongoing transmission of the Word. Books helped people believe that the Christian Bible had been handed down as a powerful unified whole. The transition from late Antiquity to the Middle Ages, and with it the process of formation of the Christian Bible, was complete.

Also let’s not forget the Passion Plays of the Middle Ages.

I have to agree the burden of proof is on teacher to prove her claim.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

My daughter is homeschooled. Once a week she takes classes through a Christian homeschool group I belong to. Children of many denominations attend.

In her history class today she said she was learning about monks and monastaries in the middle ages. I asked her what she learned and she talked about how the monks copied the Bible by hand (which she already knew) and they carried prayer books on their belts. I asked her if there was anything else. She said in the middle ages only priests and monks were allowed to read the Bible others could be killed or persecuted for reading the Bible.

I was worried about it this kind of thing once she mentioned monks and monastaries because there are quite a few protestants in this group. She said the teacher asked how many were Catholic in the class. My daughter said several children raised their hand.

Before I address this with her teacher is there any shred of truth to the statement she made?

These:​

• King Alfred
• Dante
• Chaucer
  & others were not priests - they were all laymen; & were far from ignorant of the Bible. Dante refers to the Bible about 600 times in his works.

There is some truth, in that several translations & printings were banned between 1199 & 1486 (& also after the start of the Reformation of course); but it is wholly untrue that the Bible was known only to the clergy.

Bible reading as such was not the problem - using the Bible to spread error, most certainly was. In view of her purpose, the Church not unreasonably objected rather strongly to the latter. Nonetheless, there was never a universal prohibition of Bible-reading in the pre-Reformation era - it would in any case have been impossible to enforce.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

My daughter is homeschooled. Once a week she takes classes through a Christian homeschool group I belong to. Children of many denominations attend.

In her history class today she said she was learning about monks and monastaries in the middle ages. I asked her what she learned and she talked about how the monks copied the Bible by hand (which she already knew) and they carried prayer books on their belts. I asked her if there was anything else. She said in the middle ages only priests and monks were allowed to read the Bible others could be killed or persecuted for reading the Bible.

I was worried about it this kind of thing once she mentioned monks and monastaries because there are quite a few protestants in this group. She said the teacher asked how many were Catholic in the class. My daughter said several children raised their hand.

Before I address this with her teacher is there any shred of truth to the statement she made?

I’m taking a minor in history for college, and right now I’m particularly studying Medieval history out of my new strong interest in the Catholic Church.

There is some truth in what this teacher was saying. According to historian William Durant in his book “The Age of Faith,” page 770, a Council of Toulouse in 1229 “decreed that no lay folk should possess scriptural books except the Psalter and the Hours (which were chiefly psalms); nor should they read these except in Latin, for no vernacular translation had yet been examined and guaranteed by the Church.” Many people resisted this and were burned at the stake. This decree restricting the availability of scriptures was first made by the church council because heresies were flourishing throughout the land as a consequence of lay people interpreting the scriptures on their own and coming to their own conclusions.

 

[rwoehmke]

This was a time when heresy was rampant in Southern France. It persisted for many years. The scriptural ban would have been a local phenomenon.

 

[Contarini]

The part about priests and monks reading the Bible is partially true as Bibles were scarce and written in Latin. Most of the people at that time were illiterate and the only exposure they could get to Scripture was at Mass. So it was not a matter of them not being allowed but of them not being able.

This isn’t an adequate response, because the Scriptures could have been read in the vernacular. In the later Middle Ages there definitely was a widespread opinion that the unexpurgated Bible was a bit too dangerous for laypeople, although it wasn’t as universal as Protestants often claim–most European languages had vernacular translations by the time of the Reformation, and outside England these were not forbidden by the Church. After the Reformation, unfortunately, the restrictive attitude became more universal (though ironically England was once again the exception, since the Church recognized that persecuted English Catholics needed a Bible in the vernacular).

Paraphrases and explanations of the Bible, both verbal and pictorial, were extremely common throughout the Middle Ages. And for that matter it appears that the vernacular Bible banned in southern France in the late 13th century was such a paraphrase, with heretical (Cathar) content (though the Waldenses did eventually have a vernacular translation).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Many people resisted this and were burned at the stake.

This is misleading. I am confident that no one was ever burned at the stake simply for reading or translating the Bible without engaging in any heretical interpretations thereof. They might have been disciplined in some lesser way, but they wouldn’t have been burned. Only obstinate or relapsed heretics were burned.

Edwin

 

[estesbob]

I’m taking a minor in history for college, and right now I’m particularly studying Medieval history out of my new strong interest in the Catholic Church.

There is some truth in what this teacher was saying. According to historian William Durant in his book “The Age of Faith,” page 770, a Council of Toulouse in 1229 “decreed that no lay folk should possess scriptural books except the Psalter and the Hours (which were chiefly psalms); nor should they read these except in Latin, for no vernacular translation had yet been examined and guaranteed by the Church.” Many people resisted this and were burned at the stake. This decree restricting the availability of scriptures was first made by the church council because heresies were flourishing throughout the land as a consequence of lay people interpreting the scriptures on their own and coming to their own conclusions.

This is not correct. I know if you Google council of Toulose you will find many anti-cathoilic sites making the exact same claim. Problem is if you read the documents of the council you’ll find its not true. What was banned were new, unapproved translations of the Bible , mainly those put forth by the Albigensians This heresy was based on the concept a good God and an evil God(I am over simplifying this) . The former supposedly created the spiritual worls, the latter the material worls. They rejected Ressurection-both for Jesus and for man.

The executions that took place,not by the Church, but by civil authorities, had nothing to do with owning Bibles-it was related to an attempt to end this heresy. The Albegnians had become a political as well as a religious threat and the civil authorites were as anxious to get rid of them as the chuirch.

Protestants propogate this myth becuase of their flawed view that anyone who actually read the Bible would embrace the false doctrines of Sola Fidelis and Sola Scriptura. This ignores the fact that for 1,500 years the most brilliant men of the ages openly read scriptue and none of them ever came even close to divining the new doctirnes created by Martin Luther.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

This is not correct. I know if you Google council of Toulose you will find many anti-cathoilic sites making the exact same claim. Problem is if you read the documents of the council you’ll find its not true. What was banned were new, unapproved translations of the Bible

Could you provide me with a source for this?

, mainly those put forth by the Albigensians This heresy was based on the concept a good God and an evil God(I am over simplifying this) . The former supposedly created the spiritual worls, the latter the material worls. They rejected Ressurection-both for Jesus and for man.

The executions that took place,not by the Church, but by civil authorities, had nothing to do with owning Bibles-it was related to an attempt to end this heresy. The Albegnians had become a political as well as a religious threat and the civil authorites were as anxious to get rid of them as the chuirch.

I know there were mass executions of the Albigensians, though I don’t think you can disconnect that from the Church, for Pope Innocent III was the one who started that crusade. It would never have happened if it wasn’t for him. Though I do think I recall him feeling it went too far. I’m not sure on that.

Protestants propogate this myth becuase of their flawed view that anyone who actually read the Bible would embrace the false doctrines of Sola Fidelis and Sola Scriptura. This ignores the fact that for 1,500 years the most brilliant men of the ages openly read scriptue and none of them ever came even close to divining the new doctirnes created by Martin Luther.

I’m not objecting to your second sentence, though I think your first is a generalization and also not wholly accurate. I, for one, tend to believe “this myth” because I encountered it in a history book and for no other reason.

 

[rayne89]

This was the teacher’s response to my email

No, I am sorry your daughter misunderstood. We did talk about the middle ages being known as the dark ages for many reasons. One of them being that most of the world’s population were illiterate. The Bible in those times was written in Latin, and services were conducted in Latin. The common belief and practice of that day was that the word of God (Bible) was reserved for the clergy to read and interpret. The people were kept in the (dark). The Bible was not available to commoners nor were most books.
It is true, and you could find tremendous evidence in historical writings, that indeed thousands of people were martyred and persecuted for teaching God’s word, and some for attempting to translate it into a language that common folks could read .
It wasn’t until the time of Gutenberg’s printing press and the translation from Wycliffe that the Bible began to be openly read. This was the time known as the reformation which ushered in the Renaissance and closed the DARK ages forever.
After the mid 1500’s the veil began to lift …yet not completely… If you study the time period of the early 1600’s you will read about John Bunyan’s imprisonment for preaching the word, and the famous stories of the pilgrim forefathers persecution in England. They were arrested for meeting in secret to read the Bible and having church outside of the state approved church.
Often in class, we have discussions and the kids chat back and forth and sometimes things get misunderstood. Please encourage her to ask questions if she is not sure of something or if sh is troubled. Well,hopefully she enjoys the class and it would prove to be a great experience for her . If for some reason you are not satisfied with the class , it is early enough to get her into another class at that hour. She is an engaging young lady, and is quite bright I have enjoyed her this year as well as last.
Hope that helps

 

[PinoyCatholic]

What a huge, stinking load!

 

[Contarini]

This was the teacher’s response to my email

Why is your daughter taking this class? Admittedly, I’m a historian myself, so when I think about homeschooling (my daughter is 10 months old, so I don’t have to make a decision right away) the idea of teaching her history is one of the main attractions. I can see why you might want to bring in someone else if history isn’t your strong point. But frankly, from the teacher’s email you really don’t need this perspective. It’s not the view of the Middle Ages held by serious secular historians any more. It’s an old 19th-century approach maintained today by conservative Protestants for sectarian reasons. The Middle Ages are absolutely fascinating, and your daughter needs a history teacher who can show her how rich and wonderful they were, without of course whitewashing the dark side.

The whole notion of the Middle Ages as a “dark age” followed by a glorious Renaissance is pure mythology. The reference to the darkness “lifting, but not completely” because Bunyan was still being persecuted in the 17th century is telling. Actually the 16th and 17th centuries were times of far greater persecution and religious conflict, if only because there was far more religious disagreement. Another example–the widespread fear of witchcraft and the mass killing of suspected people was a phenomenon primarily of the Renaissance and early modern era, not of the Middle Ages, yet people routinely associate it with the latter because of this same old-fashioned stereotype.

Edwin

 

[Mike_Brick]

This was the teacher’s response to my email

Change her class, and possibly the homeschool affiliation! They are teaching your daughter a post-reformation revisionist history, and calling it history.

Blessings
Mike

 

[rayne89]

I am pulling her from the class. I also sent emails to two other families that have children in the class that I know from our parish.

We have never run into this problem before (she took classes last year as well) and our daughter very much enjoys the classes. She had a history class last year with this same teacher and there were no problems.

I plan to email the teacher back and I’ve already emailed the person in charge of organizing the classes that I am pulling her.

 

[estesbob]

Could you provide me with a source for this?

I know there were mass executions of the Albigensians, though I don’t think you can disconnect that from the Church, for Pope Innocent III was the one who started that crusade. It would never have happened if it wasn’t for him. Though I do think I recall him feeling it went too far. I’m not sure on that.