Rome destroyed bibles?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 6glargento
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
6

6glargento

Guest
OK i got an email from one of my fundementalist friends with a link to an anti catholic article asserting that the catholic church purposly kept the bible out of people’s hands by refusing to translate it into the vernacular. i know that this is a buch of BS and that the church did translate it into the vernacular earlier than wickliffe and tyndale but can someone give me any more evidence that can help refute this? Supposedly the council of trent condemed bible reading.

wayoflife.org/fbns/romedestroyed.htm
 
OK i got an email from one of my fundementalist friends with a link to an anti catholic article asserting that the catholic church purposly kept the bible out of people’s hands by refusing to translate it into the vernacular. i know that this is a buch of BS and that the church did translate it into the vernacular earlier than wickliffe and tyndale but can someone give me any more evidence that can help refute this? Supposedly the council of trent condemed bible reading.

wayoflife.org/fbns/romedestroyed.htm
Here are two articles from THIS ROCK that might help:

catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9711clas.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0212fea3.asp
 
6glargento,

The Council of Trent in its fourth session condemned the printing of unauthorized translations of the Bible because the distorted meanings would lead people into heresy. (Imagine what you would get from a Bible that left the word “not” out of the commandment against adultery! And that actually happened.)

I’m not sure that the Church made an English translation that predates Wycliffe or Tyndale, but Douay-Rheims does predate the King James Version. Before that there weren’t so many people who could read, and those who were educated could read Latin. Additionally, the Vulgate got its name from the fact that when it was translated “into the vulgar tongue,” meaning the language that everybody spoke.
  • Liberian
 
OK i got an email from one of my fundementalist friends with a link to an anti catholic article asserting that the catholic church purposly kept the bible out of people’s hands by refusing to translate it into the vernacular. i know that this is a buch of BS and that the church did translate it into the vernacular earlier than wickliffe and tyndale but can someone give me any more evidence that can help refute this? Supposedly the council of trent condemed bible reading.

wayoflife.org/fbns/romedestroyed.htm
Uh, the Latin WAS a translation into the vernacular. That’s what people spoke. But there is also ample evidence that other translations were made by local Church bodies into the vernacular of their area. The second book mentioned by Church Militant has some great examples of that…
 
You know how the Jehovah’s Witnesses have their wacky translation? Think that but worse. Do you want the faithful confusing those with true Bibles? Of course not.
 
OK i got an email from one of my fundementalist friends with a link to an anti catholic article asserting that the catholic church purposly kept the bible out of people’s hands by refusing to translate it into the vernacular.
That’s actually quite funny. Protestants always have a really hard time understanding that things were different than they are now hundreds of years ago. They insist on judging history by today’s standards.

First, consider that Jerome’s famous Latin Bible is called the Vulgate because it was a translation from the Greek into the vernacular language of the time. Back then there were two common languages. In the East there was Greek (fortunately for them the Bible was written in it) and in the West there was Latin. Therefore, when the Bible was translated into Latin, the Church actually enabled more people to read it.

Second, consider the fact that for many centuries not many people could read anyway. Most common people couldn’t. Those who were educated enough to read, read Latin. It remained the language of the educated and the literate for a very long time.

Third, consider that until the 1500’s there was no printing press. The Church wasn’t keeping the Bible out of people’s hands, most people couldn’t afford them to begin with. Until the printing press was invented books of any kind were extremely rare and extremely expensive.

Finally, historian Hilarie Belloc says in his book The Great Heresies, that until around the 1400s local vernacular languages weren’t very prolific. They didn’t come into much use until the rise of local patriotism around that time. People expected things to be in Latin because they were part of Christendom.
 
Also, the bibles that were available to the masses were meticulously handwritten and quite valuable. So valuable, in fact, that most towns or villages might only have one Bible on the whole village. I believe Hilaire Belloc also indicated that those Bibles would have been secured within the parish church to avoid theft.
 
Also, the bibles that were available to the masses were meticulously handwritten and quite valuable. So valuable, in fact, that most towns or villages might only have one Bible on the whole village. I believe Hilaire Belloc also indicated that those Bibles would have been secured within the parish church to avoid theft.
From my understanding, the cost of one Bible was roughly the same as the cost of a whole Church! Being gilded in gold and jewels as well as all the time it took for monks to handwrite, and by handwrite I mean the writing itself was a work of art - not like some paper or letter we might write today, made Bibles the target of theives. Churches had to chain them down, much like chaining a phone book to a pay phone (if you know what a payphone is LOL!), so everybody had access to it but no one could steal it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top