Was owning a Bible ever illegal?

[Safe_Eagle]

I was watching a DVD movie on endtimes and the Rapture. The people who made comments in the movies stated that at one time it was illegal to own a bible and that they were written in Latin and most people couldn’t understand the language. So that’s why the Protestant Rapture theory wasn’t established until the 1800’s.

Any comments on this?

 

[Maranatha]

1. 
   *]There was a translation of the Bible that was so bad it was restricted to the faithful.
   *]There was a time when Bible were so expensive they needed to be locked up in the Church so they would not be stolen.
   *]There were translations of the Bible in local languages long before Martin Luther’s translation.
   *]Copies of the Bible were rare before the printing press.
   *]Most people could not read in the Middle Ages.
   *]If it were not for the Catholic Church, and thousands of monks who copied the Bible by hand for centuries, we would not have the Bible today.

 

[Della]

I was watching a DVD movie on endtimes and the Rapture. The people who made comments in the movies stated that at one time it was illegal to own a bible and that they were written in Latin and most people couldn’t understand the language. So that’s why the Protestant Rapture theory wasn’t established until the 1800’s.

Any comments on this?

Hardly. The Bible was well-known throughout the Church’s history. As Maranatha pointed out, not everyone had a personal copy for the reasons he cited. But, the stories of the Bible were known and the people heard it read at every Mass, which was/is daily not just weekly.

The idea of a secret rapture came from John Nelson Darby, a 19th century Plymouth Brethren preacher. It was a part of his theory of dispensationalism, by which he divided the epochs of the Bible into dispensations based on nothing more than his own reading of the Bible. He strung disparate verses of the Bible together to “prove” his rapture theory, now commonly called the “string of pearls” approach to biblical interpretation. Both mainline Protestant and Catholic scholars consider his theory and his interpretation specious.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

In addition to what has already been said, it is evident from public documents that the Bible was indeed part of the lives of people in general. Many of the public documents and letters written my lay people prior to the reformation, included verses from Scripture. It would be unlikely that the general public, would include verses from Scripture in their writing, if the Bible was not part of their lives in some form.

Jim

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I think this is a twist on the unofficial bible translations. You are not allowed to produce your own translation and use it as a catholic. My understanding is the Church delayed the translation to other languages thus avoiding translation issues. In turn some people produced their own. The personal translations were banned. The bible was not banned it was maintained in Greek(?). I think this is catholic bashing technique.

 

[Wolseley]

The Catholic Church banned come translations of the Bible, when the translations were bad enough to actually be erroneous.

But that’s nothing new. Protestants have done the same thing. King Henry VIII ordered every copy of William Tyndale’s 1534 English translation inside Britain to located, seized, and burned.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I was watching a DVD movie on endtimes and the Rapture. The people who made comments in the movies stated that at one time it was illegal to own a bible and that they were written in Latin and most people couldn’t understand the language. So that’s why the Protestant Rapture theory wasn’t established until the 1800’s.

Any comments on this?

John Wycliffe “translated” the Bible into English in the 14th Century. Not only was Wycliffe’s translation very poor, but he also tampered with the Bible – making it say what he wanted it to say.

Conditions in England in the 14th Century were very bad, resulting in the Great Peasant Rebellion. The peasants, bound by oath to their overlords, used Wycliffe’s Bible as moral justification for breaking their oaths and rebelling.

The Wycliffe Bible was outlawed and from then on, the English monarchy and aristocracy considered any English version of the Bible to be subversive.

The claim that the Bible was illegal is based on English, not on Church policy.

Guttenberg’s first book, printed with his newly-invented moveable type, was the Bible. If it was illegal to own or read the Bible, how in the name of Holy Gilhooley did Guttenberg expect to make any money?

 

[Contarini]

I was watching a DVD movie on endtimes and the Rapture. The people who made comments in the movies stated that at one time it was illegal to own a bible and that they were written in Latin and most people couldn’t understand the language. So that’s why the Protestant Rapture theory wasn’t established until the 1800’s.

Any comments on this?

The link between Catholic policies and the late arrival of dispensationalism is sheer nonsense. Protestants were around for several centuries before dispensationalism arose, and lots of people were reading their Bibles and coming up with all sorts of eschatological theories–just not the particular theories espoused by J. N. Darby! An equally conspiratorial but at least marginally more plausible claim by anti-Catholic non-dispensationalists is that dispensationalism is a Catholic plant to distract Protestants from true eschatology, which identifies the historic papacy as Antichrist. I say that this is *marginally *more plausible (though still nonsense) because it is true that at least some Catholics defended a futurist eschatology in response to the standard Protestant interpretation of Revelation as a prophecy of Catholicism. It may even be true that Catholic futurism had an influence on Protestant futurism and hence dispensationalism, though I’m not sure about that, given how anti-Catholic early dispensationalists (and most dispensationalists to this day) were.

In case my terms are confusing you here: futurism is the view that the book of Revelation (and Biblical apocalypticism generally) refers to events that will take place at the end of the world, in our future. Historicism, which was the more common Protestant approach from the Reformation through the 19th century, holds that Revelation gives a key to the history of Christianity and thus refers to many events that have already occurred. Preterism, which is probably the most popular view outside dispensationalist circles today is the view that Biblical apocalypticism refers to events that happened in the writer’s own lifetime and has only indirect relevance to our own day. Either preterism or a preterist/futurist combination seems to be the dominant theory among most Christians today outside dispensationalist circles. Historicism is unpopular, though it still has its fans.

 

[Contarini]

Now to your main question: the Catholic Church did historically reserve to itself the right to *restrict *Christians’ access to the Bible. This was done in various ways and under various circumstances. In southern France in the 13th century and in England in the 14-15th centuries, vernacular translation of the Bible was forbidden in order to combat particular heretical movements (at least one of these movements, the Albigensians, was radically heretical from the Protestant point of view as well; the Waldenses who flourished at the same time as the Albigensians, and the later English movement known as the “Lollards,” were closer to Protestantism in some respects and were orthodox from a “mere Christianity” perspective).

However, these bans were local and in the French case temporary. By the Reformation, every European language that I know of except for English had a vernacular translation of the Bible that was at least tacitly approved of by the Catholic Church (I’ve heard it claimed that there was one in English as well, but I have not seen persuasive documentation of this claim). In many cases the translators were priests. In Germany there were something like 17 different editions/translations (I doubt that they were all separate translations, but they may have been) of the Bible.

Then after the Reformation, the Catholic Church adopted a more restrictive posture, because the new threat was far more widespread and permanent. Laypeople were generally not allowed to own a Bible without permission from the local priest or even bishop (the rules varied somewhat). Vernacular translations were monitored and as far as I can discern they were no longer approved in many countries. I see no reasonable way to deny that the Catholic Church did in fact radically restrict laypeople’s access to the Bible. Protestants have mistakenly assumed that this stance was characteristic of the entire Middle Ages, which it wasn’t. It was adopted locally and sporadically in the Middle Ages, and on a far larger scale from the 16th into the 19th century. By the end of the 19th century the Catholic Church had changed its position and was explicitly encouraging all Christians to read the Bible, although you hear of priests and nuns on the local level discouraging lay Catholics from Bible reading until quite recent times.

Catholics on this board often defend these policies by claiming that they were directed solely at translations that were not only heretical but inaccurate (even dishonest) by any standard. I find these arguments self-serving and unconvincing. Generally, except in circumstances (like Protestant England) where Catholics were surrounded by vernacular Bibles no matter what the Church did, the Catholic Church did not encourage orthodox translations at those times and places when it was most threatened by heretical translations. In other words, I see no way to deny that the Catholic Church responded to the threat of non-Catholic translations (when and where possible) by limiting laypeople’s access to Scripture accross the board. They did not–as they could have done–simply point people to better, more orthodox translations. Catholic vernacular translations seem to have flourished at times and places (such as Germany in the late Middle Ages) where there was either relatively little heretical threat or no ability on the part of the Catholic Church to suppress heresy. I may be wrong on this one, and would welcome counterexamples.

As for the “inaccuracy” defense, all translations are going to have some inaccuracies, and certainly Catholic translations frequently reflect Catholic theological perspectives. So the claim that “heretics” deliberately twisted Scripture is an empty one unless someone can come up with some neutral test that will examine both non-Catholic and Catholic versions without assuming that Catholic theology is correct. Otherwise all that is being said is that non-Catholic translations reflect theology with which Catholics don’t agree. (Granted, the “inaccuracy” charge is at least as fair as the Protestant claim that Catholics somehow don’t like the Bible and have tried to suppress it!)

Edwin

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

By the Reformation, every European language that I know of except for English had a vernacular translation of the Bible that was at least tacitly approved of by the Catholic Church (I’ve heard it claimed that there was one in English as well, but I have not seen persuasive documentation of this claim). In many cases the translators were priests. In Germany there were something like 17 different editions/translations (I doubt that they were all separate translations, but they may have been) of the Bible.

Alfric was comissioned by King Alfred to produce an English Bible. He agreed, but tried to persuade Alfred to drop the plan, on the grounds that Jacob had four wives and this might be a bad example.

Catholics on this board often defend these policies by claiming that they were directed solely at translations that were not only heretical but inaccurate (even dishonest) by any standard. I find these arguments self-serving and unconvincing. Generally, except in circumstances (like Protestant England) where Catholics were surrounded by vernacular Bibles no matter what the Church did, the Catholic Church did not encourage orthodox translations at those times and places when it was most threatened by heretical translations. In other words, I see no way to deny that the Catholic Church responded to the threat of non-Catholic translations (when and where possible) by limiting laypeople’s access to Scripture accross the board. They did not–as they could have done–simply point people to better, more orthodox translations. Catholic vernacular translations seem to have flourished at times and places (such as Germany in the late Middle Ages) where there was either relatively little heretical threat or no ability on the part of the Catholic Church to suppress heresy. I may be wrong on this one, and would welcome counterexamples.

As for the “inaccuracy” defense, all translations are going to have some inaccuracies, and certainly Catholic translations frequently reflect Catholic theological perspectives. So the claim that “heretics” deliberately twisted Scripture is an empty one unless someone can come up with some neutral test that will examine both non-Catholic and Catholic versions without assuming that Catholic theology is correct. Otherwise all that is being said is that non-Catholic translations reflect theology with which Catholics don’t agree. (Granted, the “inaccuracy” charge is at least as fair as the Protestant claim that Catholics somehow don’t like the Bible and have tried to suppress it!)

I think you’re right here. The problem isn’t so much unauthorised translations as unauthorised interpretations. For instnace the Geneva Bible had footnotes saying things like “The Whore of Babylon, by which is intended the Church of Rome”. Similarly, there are many extreme Protestant sects offering bizarre interpretations of the Bible, but generally they are happy to accept the King James version as authorative.

I’ve sttend quite a few Bible Study sessions, Catholic and Protestant. Generally they are not particularly inspiring. Most people aren’t too good at Biblical exegis.

 

[1ke]

I was watching a DVD movie on endtimes and the Rapture.

Hopefully you are fully aware that the “Rapture” is a protestant teaching and not Catholic teaching.

The people who made comments in the movies stated that at one time it was illegal to own a bible

It has never been illegal to own a bible (in Christian lands… can’t speak for Saudi Arabia, etc). They are likely referring to specific faulty translations of the Bible made by various people at various times. Those specific translations were condemned by the Church for the errors they contained. There were, however, plenty of translations that were not faulty-- and those were certainly not only legal but promulgated widely.

and that they were written in Latin and most people couldn’t understand the language.

The argument put forth in the tv show is flawed because all who learned to read learned Latin. If a person could read, they could read Latin. If a person could not read, then the language of the text is irrelevant.

Also flawed is the argument that all bibles were written in Latin. It is quite well documented that the bible was translated into numerous languages and very early on.

I suggest you visit these articles in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Versions of the Bible

Manuscripts of the Bible

Editions of the Bible

So that’s why the Protestant Rapture theory wasn’t established until the 1800’s.

A little slow, since even if you accept the premise that the bible was withheld from people, Luther supposedly liberated everyone and Guttenburg’s printing press liberated the Bible from the nefarious hands of Catholics… so why did the Rapture take 400 years to come to light if it is so self-evident once people can read scripture for themselves?

Any comments on this?

Yes, it’s a bunch of hooey.

 

[Contarini]

Alfric was comissioned by King Alfred to produce an English Bible. He agreed, but tried to persuade Alfred to drop the plan, on the grounds that Jacob had four wives and this might be a bad example.

Interesting. I’ve never heard that. However, I know that the Anglo-Saxon period did produce a vernacular version of Genesis, and I believe of the entire Heptateuch (the Pentateuch plus Joshua and Judges); also of the Gospels, the Psalms, and some other parts of Scripture.

I think you’re right here. The problem isn’t so much unauthorised translations as unauthorised interpretations.

All translation is interpretation–but of course not all interpretation is translation.

Edwin

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Hi Safe Eagle, I am a protestant and I would be all for burning Arian mistranslations of the bible like the Jehovah’s Witnesses New World Translation because those bibles were created to support false christs. So, if a christian church viewed a specific translation as corrupt, then it only makes sense that they would destroy it.

 

[JimG]

I think it was perhaps illegal in Soviet Russia, maybe still is in Saudi Arabia, though I’m only guessing.

 

[Church_Militant]

I was watching a DVD movie on endtimes and the Rapture. The people who made comments in the movies stated that at one time it was illegal to own a bible and that they were written in Latin and most people couldn’t understand the language. So that’s why the Protestant Rapture theory wasn’t established until the 1800’s.

Any comments on this?

In some places and times, yes.

You have to understand that those were very different times.

Here in the U.S., today, we have a measure of freedom.of speech, but there were times when what the king or governer said was law and there was no such freedom.

During and after the “reformation”, (after the invention of the printing press in about 1447) error riddled translations of the Word of God came into being and the various governments moved to suppress them at the behest of the church, much the same way that you might not allow a copy of the Jehovah’s Witness New World Translation, or the Q’uran, or Books of Mormon in your home today, right?) It was a real mess, let me tell you.

However, it cut both ways as the Protestants did essentially the very same thing to Catholic Bibles and to Catholics, so don’t believe all that one-sided propaganda because it was not a time of peace, love, and brotherhood by any means. :bible1:

A good way to get the “straight dope” on the Bible and it’s history is a great book called “Where We Got the Bible” by Fr. Henry G. Graham. It’s there online, but it’s inexpensive and worth adding to your personal library after you read it (and mark it up if you’re like me.)

As for “the Rapture” (again… ) they have twisted the facts to suit their agenda.

Stop and look at this allegation in the context of the historical time line.

1. 
   *]The printing press was invented in about 1447, right?
   *]That means that the Bible was already being printed, right?
   *]John Nelson Darby, the Church of Ireland pastor, concocted this errant teaching in about 1825. (about 175 years after the printing press began to crank out the Bible and other books).
   *]This teaching didn’t even really become known until C.I. Schofield included it in the notes of his “Reference Bible” which didn’t come out until 1909.
   *]Does what they said seem correct in the context of the years I have cited? The mid 1400s to the early 1900s. Over 500 years or so, right? Bear in mind that at this point that there were several English Bibles available by the early 1600s, including the Bishop’s Bible, Geneva Bible, Douay-Rheims Bible and KJV.
   
   See some inconsistency here?
   
   For a great Catholic Bible study on a FREE MP3 on “The Rapture and the Bible” just click on that link and download and listen (about an hour, I think). His notes are HERE.
   CA also has The Rapture and The “Left Behind Series”.
   Pax tecum,

 

[Sixtus]

It was certainly illegal for many years in communist Russia. So too in China and still today in many parts of the world.

It is estimated that currently there are no fewer than 2 million Christians in prisons around the world, some have been there for over 25-years,

Their only crime was to be caught in possession of a bible

I have no proof of the above figures. Nor the source I originally read it. I do apologise for that. I have no varification the numbers quoted are accurate. I have taken the information at face value.

It may be false