Was the Bible forbidden in the Middle Ages, as some have claimed?

[Zooey]

brotherhrolf:

As an aside, I don’t think that brother Old Scholar has any idea about how geese feel when getting their left flight feathers plucked (I’m right handed and have to use the left feather).

Having grown up in the house with a Latin teacher, I know well the tales of the city of Rome being saved from sacking at the hands of the barbarian hordes, due to the fact that the Roman geese attacked said barbarians.
Mind you, I suspect that there were probably some interesting versions of the story put about by those who were forced to retreat…Being beat up by the poultry is a fearsome, but nonetheless ignoble end to a battle…

 

[brotherhrolf]

I am not so foolish as to try and grab our geese. They give me enough heartache at dusk trying to get them into the barn before the coons and possums come out. Given the coons and possums and rats - our entire poultry flock got wiped out last summer because of all the building going on around us. I have a male and female goose and I have a male and female turkey. I wait until their feathers molt.

It simply floors me that folks don’t know about the process of writing and assume it is just as easy as taking out a Bic pen and writing stuff out long-handed.

I do, of course, have brass nibs but the process of writing out words using either brass nibs or a quill is essentially the same. I even remember when Bic pens came out in the late 50s. Prior to that we used fountain pens.

Sure, I could make a copy of the Bible using Bic pens. I don’t think it would be as facile as Old Scholar makes it out to be but it would probably be quicker although it would not LOOK as nice as it should. Heaven forfend that we should not care about how the Word of God looks!

Old Scholar evidently does not have any understanding of the mental mindset of the monks who wrote out Scripture. In the Book of Kells, which is the four Gospels, there are four “hands” identified. Four monks who wrote out the Gospels. This does not even take into account the monks who did the illuminations.

I have done work for HMC as a calligrapher and illuminator. I have never signed any one of those pieces. My talent came from God and I gave my talent back to God. We don’t know the identities of the four Irish monks who penned the Book of Kells and we don’t need to.

The very idea that our calligraphers and illuminators can be reduced to mere copyists with Bic pens is anathema to me. I’m sorry. This is the same type of argument I got from Brother Jimmy some twenty years ago. I rejected it then and I reject it now.

This is not an argument which is going to float. The number of “Bibles” the Cathars/Albegensians had in their possesion was less than a handful. To make the argument that HMC went ballistic back then borders on science fiction. The same thing applies to Wyclyff. The simple fact that escapes these complaints is that there were not Bic pens and that it was not possible to whip out a copy of the Bible via hand. Even writing without illuminations, a copy of the Bible took over a year to copy by hand.

I’m not doing rocket science here. I am a calligrapher and I know how long it takes me to lay out a page. I could go technical and say that using a BIC involves ligatures and so on and so forth.

But I am tired. And so I submit to you readers that before 1450 at the earliest, everything had to be written out by hand. It took a long time - as in years. We can make our statements based upon the use of BIC pens but it doesn’t tell you the reality of having to gather molted quills much less plucking a quill from a goose’s flight feather. Or the fact that writing with a quill is not the same as writing with a Bic pen.

We get drive by postings which make me very sad. OK I’m Irish they make me very mad.

Old Scholar: You have not answered me on the Cathar/Albigensian question. Do you agree with them?

Old Scholar: You have not answered me on the Wycliff and Lollard question. Do you agree with them?

 

[Old_Scholar]

**All the talk of Bic pens, etc. shows a complete ignorance of writing in the days before Christ and the first few centuries after Christ.

How long do you suppose it took Paul to write his epistles? The letters were often typicall from 1 to 6 chapers long and that was they had been made into paragraphs, had punctuation inserted, etc.

I could copy the 2nd and third books of John or the book of Jude or even any of Paul’s epistles in a few hours at most. In the shorter ones, probably less than an hour.

No one copied the entire Bible then. Each book was written on animal skins, papyrus or parchment and written in a scroll. They were kept separate and rolled up. It would not have been hard to have them copied. You guys are not even being realistic; or else are just ignorant of those days; I don’t know which.

It wasn’t until the third century that codex was used. That was the first “books.” I thought those of you who seem to be so knowledgeable in history would have know that—or were you just being a little bantering?**

 

[irishmac]

**All the talk of Bic pens, etc. shows a complete ignorance of writing in the days before Christ and the first few centuries after Christ.

How long do you suppose it took Paul to write his epistles? The letters were often typicall from 1 to 6 chapers long and that was they had been made into paragraphs, had punctuation inserted, etc.

I could copy the 2nd and third books of John or the book of Jude or even any of Paul’s epistles in a few hours at most. In the shorter ones, probably less than an hour.

No one copied the entire Bible then. Each book was written on animal skins, papyrus or parchment and written in a scroll. They were kept separate and rolled up. It would not have been hard to have them copied. You guys are not even being realistic; or else are just ignorant of those days; I don’t know which.

It wasn’t until the third century that codex was used. That was the first “books.” I thought those of you who seem to be so knowledgeable in history would have know that—or were you just being a little bantering?**

Hi Old Scholar,

I think that your comments are displaying a lack of Christian charity and a lack of human decency and respect. I have been diligently reading this thread from the start, lurking in the background, and I have to point out that you have claimed numerous “facts” about the subject without providing any primary source material. Others in this thread have provided claims about the subject and have substantiated their claims. Where is your primary source material to support your claims? I would like to see the scholarship, the studies, from experts in the field, supporting your assertions. I would like to see a list of historians, anthropolgists, etc., that support your claims. Otherwise, it is empty rhetoric charged with vitriol.

I believe that you should maintain some level of Christian charity. If that is too much, then, at least, some human decency.

Dominus vobsicum

 

[cfrancis]

**All the talk of Bic pens, etc. shows a complete ignorance of writing in the days before Christ and the first few centuries after Christ.

How long do you suppose it took Paul to write his epistles?** The letters were often typicall from 1 to 6 chapers long and that was they had been made into paragraphs, had punctuation inserted, etc.
I believe the show of ignorance is all yours, with that above statements. And Paul probably didn’t write all his own letters, rather dictated them - which, given the writing technology of the day, didn’t speed up the process.
I notice you don’t answer your own question (in bold above).

I could copy the 2nd and third books of John or the book of Jude or even any of Paul’s epistles in a few hours at most. In the shorter ones, probably less than an hour.

 

[Thing]

Book of kells Chi Rho page. Dimensions of page 330 * 250 mm or thereabouts. The gold is gold leaf. The blue is Lapis lazuli, a hard stone only found in Afganistan, very expensive, how many months did it take a donkey and camel to walk from Ireland to Afganistan and back, then to Iona near Scotland and back to Ireland.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[brotherhrolf]

All the talk of Bic pens, etc. shows a complete ignorance of writing in the days before Christ and the first few centuries after Christ.

How long do you suppose it took Paul to write his epistles? The letters were often typicall from 1 to 6 chapers long and that was they had been made into paragraphs, had punctuation inserted, etc.

I could copy the 2nd and third books of John or the book of Jude or even any of Paul’s epistles in a few hours at most. In the shorter ones, probably less than an hour.

No one copied the entire Bible then. Each book was written on animal skins, papyrus or parchment and written in a scroll. They were kept separate and rolled up. It would not have been hard to have them copied. You guys are not even being realistic; or else are just ignorant of those days; I don’t know which.

It wasn’t until the third century that codex was used. That was the first “books.” I thought those of you who seem to be so knowledgeable in history would have know that—or were you just being a little bantering?

Old Scholar - rest assured that I will respond. I am unable to do so charitably right now because what you posted is nothing more than drecht - a fine Anglo-Saxon word. But oh! How I wished I had you in my presence and could present to you a quill and a bottle of ink and tell you to have at it.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I am really, really, really grieved to the depth of my soul by the words of some who, in an effort to progress their claims, spout invective about that which they know naught.

saintjohnsbible.org/see/videos.htm

Want to see about making a Bible? Check any of these links out. I can’t wait until this Bible makes it’s way to Mobile for an exhibition. In the mean time boys and girls whip those quill pens out and around like they were Bics. Old Scholar knows all.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Never mind. I am still too furious. Old Scholar - watch the videos and tell me you could whip out a gospel as quickly. NOT!

 

[Tantum_ergo]

“Old Scholar”–

Right now your credibility (with me anyway) as a scholar is just about kaput. That’s about as charitably as I can put it. I am very sorry that your animus against Catholicism is so great, and that it has affected your reasoning so deeply.

May God guide you to His truth.

 

[Zooey]

All the talk of Bic pens, etc. shows a complete ignorance of writing in the days before Christ and the first few centuries after Christ.

How long do you suppose it took Paul to write his epistles? The letters were often typicall from 1 to 6 chapers long and that was they had been made into paragraphs, had punctuation inserted, etc.

I could copy the 2nd and third books of John or the book of Jude or even any of Paul’s epistles in a few hours at most. In the shorter ones, probably less than an hour.

No one copied the entire Bible then. Each book was written on animal skins, papyrus or parchment and written in a scroll. They were kept separate and rolled up. It would not have been hard to have them copied. You guys are not even being realistic; or else are just ignorant of those days; I don’t know which.

It wasn’t until the third century that codex was used. That was the first “books.” I thought those of you who seem to be so knowledgeable in history would have know that—or were you just being a little bantering?

**[SIGN1]**Bologna.****[/SIGN1]
Ye are:nope: nae a ‘scholar’, yean. Ye’re nought a :whacky: wee laddie who needs to learn to show some respect for his elders & betters.

And for the truth, while ye’re at it.:twocents:

Old Scholar what you posted is nothing more than drecht - a fine Anglo-Saxon word.

Hey! I know that word!!
My Holland Dutch great-grandmother used to use that word to describe, ummmm…to describe what you needed to be careful not to :bigyikes: step in, if you were at the northern end of a southern-bound horse!!

 

[Old_Scholar]

Hi Old Scholar,

I think that your comments are displaying a lack of Christian charity and a lack of human decency and respect. I have been diligently reading this thread from the start, lurking in the background, and I have to point out that you have claimed numerous “facts” about the subject without providing any primary source material. Others in this thread have provided claims about the subject and have substantiated their claims. Where is your primary source material to support your claims? I would like to see the scholarship, the studies, from experts in the field, supporting your assertions. I would like to see a list of historians, anthropolgists, etc., that support your claims. Otherwise, it is empty rhetoric charged with vitriol.

I believe that you should maintain some level of Christian charity. If that is too much, then, at least, some human decency.

Dominus vobsicum

I don’t know what you have been reading or which corner you have been skulking in but I have not failed to maintain a level of Christian charity and I have given references when I have posted quotes or other type material.

Would you be so fair as to show me the “facts” you say I have provided without showing the source material?

If your intent is merely to ambuscade, then I suggest you take your footles elsewhere.

 

[Old_Scholar]

I believe the show of ignorance is all yours, with that above statements. And Paul probably didn’t write all his own letters, rather dictated them - which, given the writing technology of the day, didn’t speed up the process.
I notice you don’t answer your own question (in bold above).
MOdern pen, modern ink (designed to actually flow well!) and modern paper - are you asserting such was used by the authors of Scriptures and subsequent scribes?

I notice you came to your conclusion without providing any evidence to contradict the argument presented.

When they start talking of trying to copy the Bible and then referring to Bic pens, it doesn’t take a genius to know they have no idea of what was copied and how. It seems they believe one sat down with a Bible and started making copies which would indicate a lack of knowledge about how it was done.

 

[Old_Scholar]

I am really, really, really grieved to the depth of my soul by the words of some who, in an effort to progress their claims, spout invective about that which they know naught.

saintjohnsbible.org/see/videos.htm

Want to see about making a Bible? Check any of these links out. I can’t wait until this Bible makes it’s way to Mobile for an exhibition. In the mean time boys and girls whip those quill pens out and around like they were Bics. Old Scholar knows all.

The Bible you are showing here is certainly nothing like the writings of those days. First they weren’t copying a “Bible” but books and letters. We are talking of the New Testament here and your comments about having to pluck a feather from a goose are a little archaic and insincere.

(and by the way, I believe you mispelled the word…)

 

[Old_Scholar]

Never mind. I am still too furious. Old Scholar - watch the videos and tell me you could whip out a gospel as quickly. NOT!

**I doubt if you have any idea of how to actually write with a quill. The first time I learned to write I had to use a quill and ink well in the desk but by the next year we had advanced to fountain pens. Really getting modern.

I doubt if you know what an ink well in a desk is. You haven’t lived until you have dipped the cute hair of the girl sitting in front of you into an ink well. Calligraphy is an art form, no longer a method of writing.**

 

[irishmac]

I don’t know what you have been reading or which corner you have been skulking in but I have not failed to maintain a level of Christian charity and I have given references when I have posted quotes or other type material.

Would you be so fair as to show me the “facts” you say I have provided without showing the source material?

If your intent is merely to ambuscade, then I suggest you take your footles elsewhere.

IMHO, accusing someone, like brotherhrolf, who, obviously knows a tremendous amount on this matter, of “complete ignorance,” simply because you could not comprehend what he was saying, is lacking in Christian charity. Now, I don’t skulk in corners; I spend much of my time reading threads of interest because, I admit, I am not as well versed as many on CAF. So, I read, learning what I can.

I did not make the claims. You did, and yet you have not provided any primary source material. Which historian supports your assertions? Which anthropologist? Who? From what I have seen, you have not done so, and that is academically dishonest. In order for me to consider a claim, like the ones you’ve given us, I need the support material.

I have not chimed in to ambush you, nor waste anyone’s time.

Take what I said as a request.

Dominus vobsicum

 

[cfrancis]

When they start talking of trying to copy the Bible and then referring to Bic pens, it doesn’t take a genius to know they have no idea of what was copied and how. It seems they believe one sat down with a Bible and started making copies which would indicate a lack of knowledge about how it was done.

Your lack of intellectual integrity never ceases to amaze.
Please - show me where a poster referred to anyone writing a Bible with a Bic pen.
Your initial question referred to the Middle Ages; did they have Bibles by then? What about, say 400 AD? Bibles then?

 

[irishmac]

**I doubt if you have any idea of how to actually write with a quill. The first time I learned to write I had to use a quill and ink well in the desk but by the next year we had advanced to fountain pens. Really getting modern.

I doubt if you know what an ink well in a desk is. You haven’t lived until you have dipped the cute hair of the girl sitting in front of you into an ink well. Calligraphy is an art form, no longer a method of writing.**

Now you are attacking him personally. What reason do you have to suspect that he is not speaking truthfully? You don’t have any reason and yet you challenge what brotherhrolf says he does. You have apparently shifted gears on your Christian charity.

 

[Old_Scholar]

“Old Scholar”–

Right now your credibility (with me anyway) as a scholar is just about kaput. That’s about as charitably as I can put it. I am very sorry that your animus against Catholicism is so great, and that it has affected your reasoning so deeply.

May God guide you to His truth.

I realize it hurts when you hear the truth but I assure you I have no animosity against Catholicism.

You see, this post asked if the Bible was forbidden in the Middle Ages and I provided Catholic references that show it was, and when it was, and that hurts some people. I know they don’t want to believe that, but it happened and it is a fact. There is no reason to take one’s displeasure with that fact out on me. Any animosity should be directed at those who did that—not me for pointing it out!

 

[Old_Scholar]

IMHO, accusing someone, like brotherhrolf, who, obviously knows a tremendous amount on this matter, of “complete ignorance,” simply because you could not comprehend what he was saying, is lacking in Christian charity. Now, I don’t skulk in corners; I spend much of my time reading threads of interest because, I admit, I am not as well versed as many on CAF. So, I read, learning what I can.

I did not make the claims. You did, and yet you have not provided any primary source material. Which historian supports your assertions? Which anthropologist? Who? From what I have seen, you have not done so, and that is academically dishonest. In order for me to consider a claim, like the ones you’ve given us, I need the support material.

I have not chimed in to ambush you, nor waste anyone’s time.

Take what I said as a request.

Dominus vobsicum

But in such a long thread, how can I know what you are tlking about if you don’t list the claims you say I made without support? I believe I gave references to everything that required one, that’s why I asked. To be honest you must admit most of those who have opposed what I have said give no references at all. If I am stating an opinion, then there is no reference. If I am making a quote, the reference is there.