Pope Francis: turn to the Bible to engage in spiritual combat [CWN]

[Duane1966]

I wonder why they needed so many different translations. Was it because the area was made up of separate political areas and information wasn’t shared? That seems like a lot. One or two authorized translations could have been sufficient and solved the issue of improperly translated works. Most, if not all, of the translations before Luther were translations of the Latin instead of translations from the Hebrew and Greek.

Why are there hundreds of translations today? Money. Those printers were trying to make money. That and different regions of any country back then spoke different dialects. That is why you had High German and Low German. In the 19th and early 20th century, the French spoken in Montreal was very different than the French spoken in France and Louisiana.

It seems that there was inconsistency in various regions as to whether vernacular Bibles were allowed.:

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge: BIBLE READING BY THE LAITY, RESTRICTIONS ON.
Chapter II:
"Owing to lack of culture among the Germanic and Romanic peoples, there was for a long time no thought of restricting access to the Bible there. Translations of Biblical books into German began only in the Carolingian period and were not originally intended for the laity. Nevertheless the people were anxious to have the divine service and the Scripture lessons read in the vernacular. John VIII in 880 permitted, after the reading of the Latin gospel, a translation into Slavonic; but Gregory VII, in a letter to Duke Vratislav of Bohemia in 1080 characterized the custom as unwise, bold, and forbidden (Epist., vii, 11; P. Jaff�, BRG, ii, 392 sqq.). This was a formal prohibition, not of Bible reading in general, but of divine service in the vernacular."

This quote pertains to the Mass, and not the bible.

"In Germany, Charles IV issued in 1369 an edict to four inquisitors against the translating and the reading of Scripture in the German language.This edict was caused by the operations of Beghards and Beguines.

Secular authority, not the Church.

In 1485 and 1486, Berthold, archbishop of Mainz, issued an edict against the printing of religious books in German, giving among other reasons the singular one that the German language was unadapted to convey correctly religious ideas, and therefore they would be profaned. Berthold’s edict had some influence, but could not prevent the dissemination and publication of new editions of the Bible. Leaders in the Church sometimes recommended to the laity the reading of the Bible, and the Church kept silence officially as long as these efforts were not abused."
ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc02/htm/iv.v.lxi.htm

No bearing on our discussion. Laity was still free to own the version that the Church had authorized, the Latin Vulgate.

Chapter III.2:
“The first index published by a pope (Paul IV), in 1559, prohibited under the title of Biblia prohibita a number of Latin editions as well as the publication and possession of translations of the Bible in German, French, Spanish, Italian, English, or Dutch, without the permission of the sacred office of the Roman Inquisition (Reusch, ut sup., i, 264).”
ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc02/htm/iv.v.lxi.htm

This quote again proves my point, and weakens your argument. You were free to own the Latin Vulgate, and if you got permission, you were free to own other bibles also. So once again, we see the bible is not prohibited, just certain translations.

 

[Duane1966]

Most, if not all, of the translations before Luther were translations of the Latin instead of translations from the Hebrew and Greek.

You obviously did not read the article I linked to. A pity, you would have seen this.

Scholars who acknowledge the wide circulation of vernacular Bibles often argue that they were linguistically inferior, claiming that Luther relied exclusively on the original Greek’ text of the New Testament in his translation** (which places more weight on Erasmus’ faulty 1516 edition of the New Testament in Greek and on Luther’s use of it than either can bear, ignores Luther’s reliance on both earlier German translations and the Vulgate,9 and gives him more credit as a philologist than he deserves).**

I don’t know when the Council of Trent’s ban was lifted allowing Catholics to read any version of the Bible even without getting special written authorization to do so, but I am glad that the Bible is being embraced and read regularly by Catholics today.

As it has been throughout the Catholic Church’s 2000 year history. The following is taken from this article, of which the author is a Protestant historian: patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2016/05/banning-the-bible-did-it-happen-in-pre-reformation-europe/

As I established in my previous post, vernacular translations of the Bible existed in England long before the Reformation. Moreover, they were used by clergy and laity alike.** I venture that many late medieval English folk were just as well versed in scripture as many of their Reformation counterparts (although it is certainly true that the sections of scripture they knew would have varied).**

The question then stands: what about medieval ecclesiastical proclamations banning vernacular translations of the Bible?

Yes, the medieval church did make prohibitions against vernacular Bibles. Pope Gregory VII forbade publication of vernacular scripture in Bohemia in 1080; the papacy declared in 1199 that vernacular translations were praiseworthy but dangerous; the Synod of Toulouse in 1229 directed a canon against the misuse of scripture (which included forbidding vernacular texts); and–the most famous–in 1408 the Third Synod of Oxford forbade translating the Bible into English.

But these restrictions on vernacular Bibles must be contextualized. As Frans van Liere so astutely states in his An Introduction to the Medieval Bible (p. 203):

“On the one hand, there are a number of edicts and injunctions against the translating of the Bible into the vernacular, and against the use of such Bibles. On the other hand, no text was more widespread and popular** than the Bible in its many vernacular versions, and many of these do not seem to have raised an eyebrow from the ecclesiastical authorities.**

Historians studying this period must thus acknowledge a wide range of opinions and practices that were not always consistent with each other.”

In other words, the medieval Catholic church never comprehensively banned vernacular Bibles. See van Liere again:

“Contrary to popular perception, there was no blanket prohibition against biblical translation in the vernacular in the Middle Ages.”

Vernacular Bibles, for the most part, flourished and were accepted by ecclesiastical authorities. This is true even in England, as attested by the widespread flourishing of the Wycliffite Bible among Catholic clergy and laity alike.

It was mostly during moments of stress and fear that localized and reactionary prohibitions against Bibles were made. Note that three of the four prohibitions mentioned above were made in direct response to heresy threats: the Waldensians and Albigensians in 1199 and 1229, and the Lollards in 1408. The historical origins of the prohibitions (localized responses) and the continued flourishing of vernacular scripture despite the prohibitions also suggests that the concern was more with untrained lay folk teaching and preaching the Bible, and thereby spreading heretical ideas, than with vernacular scripture itself. As van Liere writes,

“There was a large corpus of medieval vernacular translations and paraphrase of biblical texts, and there were no objections against their use, as long as these texts and their uses avoided association with heretical groups.

”
​

​

I would add that scholars admit that the laity in pre-Reformation Germany also knew much more of the bible than was previously thought.

but I am glad that the Bible is being embraced and read regularly by Catholics today.

As I am the same for Protestants. See Susan, it cuts both ways. Since Catholic bible translations were banned in England, and burned in Switzerland and France, one must assume the same parallel that Protestants did not want certain translations of the bible read. By your logic, Protestantism has discouraged bible reading.

 

[susanlo]

It was a crime in Protestant England to own the Douay-Rheims bible, and they were burned. As were bibles where the Reformers held sway in Switzerland. As were Latin Vulgates burned in parts of Protestant controlled France.

I find it believable that people reacted this way during the reformation. There was a lot of passion and zeal. Which Bible was burned by reformers in Switzerland? I clearly realize that banning and burning Bibles was not the right thing for them to do. I don’t know of any Bible versions that were banned or burned in the United States. Were there any?

Oregon, early 20th century. Washington tried to also.

It looks like from what I see online that in Oregon the Masons and the KKK tried (but failed) to make it illegal to use private instead of public school in order to end Catholic schools. This is clearly wrong for adults to behave with these motivations in a free country. I don’t know who would defend what they tried to do.

No, because the Septuagint was authorized by them. The Jewish high priest sent scribes to do the translation. Notice, it was an authorized translation.

You miss the point completely. When Jesus read from the scrolls in the synagogue, very few of His audience would have fully understood what He was reading. His listeners spoke Aramaic, while the scrolls in Judea were in Hebrew. There are similarities between Hebraic and Aramaic, but comprehension would have been understanding snippets. Yet nowhere do we see Jesus upbraiding the Jewish leaders for not providing scrolls to the people in the vernacular? Why? Surely if it was important to have God’s word in the vernacular in the middle ages, it would be just as important at the time of Christ. The simple fact of the matter, a bible in the vernacular is not all that important. Much more important is the teacher of God’s word.

First Century Jews heard the Scriptures in Hebrew, but had access to an authorized Greek translation. However there were many places in the Middle Ages that did not have an authorized Bible in their language that they could have access to. There would be no reason for up to 22 different unauthorized translations to pop up if there was an authorized translation provided to them. 1st century Judaism and the Middle Ages had very different scenarios.

You misread the canon. I will dissect it for you. There are three parts to the canon. Part one is the main part. The other two parts either restrict, or clarify what exactly is being banned, and are in direct relation to part one, and each other. You must always read canons carefully. The mistaken assumption you have reached is easy to make.

Part one: If this were to stand by itself, your argument wound be valid

Part two show exceptions: If the canon were to stop here, your argument would still be valid.

Part three, stands in relation to part one, and shows exactly what is being prohibited.If we are to take your argument as valid, this part of the canon is redundant. But actually they are clarifying that it is translations that are banned in part one, not the Latin Vulgate.

So, a layperson was free to own the Latin Vulgate at this time.

The way the Canon for the Council of Toulouse is written does make it sound like all Scripture is forbidden. It is a bad translation to English if what you are saying is true. Between that and the “in the Romance language” that is in some English translations of the Council of Tarragona and not in others it is hard to know for sure. I wouldn’t know how to access the canons in Latin or how to translate them. It does seem like all Scripture could have banned at these times in those places (this would have been a good way to prevent vernacular translations from occurring), but perhaps they only banned the laity from having access to a Bible that they could understand. Either way, the church prevented many people at various locations and times from being able to read or hear Scriptures in a language they could understand. The Council of Trent was binding for all Catholics, and the list given at the time of this council declared that only those with written permission could have a Bible in their own language. I don’t know when this ban was lifted, but clearly some people at this time were forbidden to have access to Scriptures in a language they could understand.

I would add that scholars admit that the laity in pre-Reformation Germany also knew much more of the bible than was previously thought.

This wouldn’t be too surprising because this area was central to sparking the Reformation. There was clearly a lot of religious interest, knowledge and zeal here.

As I am the same for Protestants. See Susan, it cuts both ways. Since Catholic bible translations were banned in England, and burned in Switzerland and France, one must assume the same parallel that Protestants did not want certain translations of the bible read. By your logic, Protestantism has discouraged bible reading.

I won’t defend burning and banning Bibles by any group. I don’t have a problem admitting that Protestants have made mistakes. I think when the Protestant groups were banning/burning Bibles there were other “authorized” versions in the same language that people were encouraged to read, but at times in the Middle Ages there were no legal Bibles in the local language. But still - 2 wrongs don’t make a right.

 

[Duane1966]

I find it believable that people reacted this way during the reformation. There was a lot of passion and zeal. Which Bible was burned by reformers in Switzerland?

Servetus bible. Monasteries were burned in France, Switzerland, England, along with precious manuscripts and bibles.

I clearly realize that banning and burning Bibles was not the right thing for them to do.

Why? Do you think it is okay to have translations of the bible that have passages cut out and words changed to fit a particular theology, when people’s souls are at stake?

I don’t know of any Bible versions that were banned or burned in the United States. Were there any?

Probably, in some corner of the USA.

It looks like from what I see online that in Oregon the Masons and the KKK tried (but failed) to make it illegal to use private instead of public school in order to end Catholic schools. This is clearly wrong for adults to behave with these motivations in a free country. I don’t know who would defend what they tried to do.

It was a law for two years. Passed in 1922, struck down by the SCOTUS in 1925. So yes, the law was on the books for over two years.

First Century Jews heard the Scriptures in Hebrew, but had access to an authorized Greek translation.

But most of the first century Jews in the Holy Land spoke Aramaic, not Greek or Hebrew.

However there were many places in the Middle Ages that did not have an authorized Bible in their language that they could have access to.

If they were literate, they did. Understand this, if you were literate in the Middle Ages, you could read and write in Latin. There are no historians who dispute this.

There would be no reason for up to 22 different unauthorized translations to pop up if there was an authorized translation provided to them.

Not 22 translations, but 22 versions spanning decades. And the translations of these versions the Catholic Church had no problem with them. If you read the articles I linked to by the Protestant historians, they agree: The Catholic Church was fine with private ownership, and reading of bibles in any language, AS LONG AS THE BIBLES WERE ACCURATE. Every time a council passed a canon restricting usage of the bible, it was in reaction to a spreading heresy brought about by, you guessed it, bibles translated in such a way as to support a heresy.

1st century Judaism and the Middle Ages had very different scenarios.

Let’s see, literacy first century Judaism, was about 3%. Literacy during Middle Ages has been said to be no higher than 7%. If you were a Roman Jew, or an Ethiopian Jew, or even most Jews living in the Holy Land who spoke Aramaic, living in the first century, you would not understand what was being read to you. That is where preaching came in.

The way the Canon for the Council of Toulouse is written does make it sound like all Scripture is forbidden. It is a bad translation to English if what you …

I don’t think you understand Susan, at the time of those councils, Latin was the official language in those countries. So how was the Church not providing a bible in the vernacular? The Albigensian bible that was banned was in Latin also. Susan, do you understand that if you could read in this time period, you could read Latin? There are no historians that dispute that fact.

Either way, the church prevented many people at various locations and times from being able to read or hear Scriptures in a language they could understand.

Not true. The Scriptures were provided in Latin. And not one historian disputes that if you could read at this time period, that somehow you couldn’t read Latin. Did Jesus demand that the scrolls be written in Aramaic? Ethiopian? Latin? Obviously, God thought oral transmission by one who can expound correctly was more important than millions interpreting the written for themselves. ** Protestantism has bore this out.**

The Council of Trent was binding for all Catholics, and the list given at the time of this council declared that only those with written permission could have a Bible in their own language. I don’t know when this ban was lifted,** but clearly some people at this time were forbidden to have access to Scriptures in a language they could understand.**

How so? Are you saying that written permission was not given? Do you have proof of this? So if I couldn’t read Latin, but I could read an emerging French language, you are saying that if I asked my bishop to read a French bible, he would say no? Do you have proof of this? I personally believe that it would be very easy to get permission.

This wouldn’t be too surprising because this area was central to sparking the Reformation. There was clearly a lot of religious interest, knowledge and zeal here.

As they have found for the same time period wherever Christendom was.

Look, priests were banned in Japan for centuries, no bibles there. They return, and they found Catholicism had survived, with no bibles, no priests, but the faith of the people.

I won’t defend burning …

Susan, you must realize by now, if you could read in the Middle Ages, you could read Latin. And so a bible was available to you. I am not sure if you realize how hard it was to copy just one book of the bible onto vellum, which is what the bibles were made of during the early Middle Ages, or how expensive it was to own such a bible. Even if you could read, no one could afford one. The printing press changed all that. I hope you don’t blame the Catholic Church for the price of bibles during the Middle Ages.