What a bunch of nonsense. It is absolutely fascinating to see how quickly Protestants felt the need to invent lies and myths to prop up their sects.
As the old Catholic Encyclopedia noted: "It also establishes the certainty of such versions on a considerable scale in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and points to a complete Bible of the fifteenth in general use before the invention of printing. Of special interest are the five complete folio editions printed before 1477, nine from 1477 to 1522, and four in Low German, all prior to Luther's New Testament in 1522."
1) It is plainly a lie that Luther never saw a Bible before he was 20 years old.
2) Some Protestants know this is a lie as it stands so they pretend that Luther really meant he never saw a complete one volume Bible until he was 20. This too is not possible since they are known to have existed, would certainly have been in university libraries, cathedrals, bishops' residences, monasteries, etc. despite their large size and cost. Also, few people seem to realize that Protestants are trying to have it both ways when they spread this second version of the lie. A printed Bible would tend to be a larger volume yet here we read of a "little" red book. The story simply makes no sense.
As Dave Armstrong has noted: For instance (utterly contrary to the myths in this regard which are pathetically promulgated by the movie Luther), between 1466 and the onset of Protestantism in 1517 at least sixteen editions of the Bible appeared in German, with the full approval of the Catholic Church:
High German:
Strasburg: 1466, 1470, 1485
Basel, Switzerland: 1474
Augsburg: 1473 (2), 1477 (2), 1480, 1487, 1490, 1507 [also in 1518]
Nuremburg: 1483
Low German:
Cologne: 1480 (2)
Lubeck: 1494
Halberstadt: [1522]
Delf: [before 1522]
(From Johannes Janssen, History of the German People From the Close of the Middle Ages, 16 vols., translated by A.M. Christie, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1910 [orig. 1891], vol. 1, 56-57, vol. 14, 388)
Was the Bible unknown in German before 1466 and the printing press? Hardly. Raban Maur (c. 776-856), had translated the Bible into the Teutonic, or old German, language. Valafrid Strabon (c. 809-849) did the same, as did Huges of Fleury. Ottfried of Wissemburg rendered it in verse. So we see that the "conspiracy" of the Catholic Church to eliminate the Bible from the common man by banning the vernacular was singularly unsuccessful. Protestant scholar Philip Schaff, wrote in his History of the Christian Church:
During the fourteenth century some unknown scholars prepared a new translation of the whole Bible into the Middle High German dialect. It slavishly follows the Latin Vulgate. It may be compared to Wiclif's English Version (1380), which was likewise made from the Vulgate, the original languages being then almost unknown in Europe. A copy of the New Testament of this version has been recently published, from a manuscript in the Premonstratensian convent of Tepl in Bohemia. Another copy is preserved in the college library at Freiberg in Saxony. Both are from the fourteenth century, and agree almost word for word with the first printed German Bible, . . .
After the invention of the printing-press, and before the Reformation, this mediaeval German Bible was more frequently printed than any other except the Latin Vulgate. No less than seventeen or eighteen editions appeared between 1462 and 1522, at Strassburg, Augsburg, Nürnberg, Cöln, Lübeck, and Halberstadt (fourteen in the High, three or four in the Low German dialect). Most of them are in large folio, in two volumes, and illustrated by wood-cuts. Besides the whole Bible, there were numerous German editions of the Gospels and Epistles (Plenaria), and the Psalter, all made from the Vulgate.
Luther could not be ignorant of this mediaeval version. He made judicious use of it, as he did also of old German and Latin hymns. Without such aid he could hardly have finished his New Testament in the short space of three months. But this fact does not diminish his merit in the least; for his version was made from the original Hebrew and Greek, and was so far superior in every respect that the older version entirely disappeared. It is to all intents a new work . . .
NOTE: The Pre-Lutheran German Bible
According to the latest investigations, fourteen printed editions of the whole Bible in the Middle High German dialect, and three in the Low German, have been identified. Panzer already knew fourteen; see his Gesch. der nürnbergischen Ausgaben der Bibel, Nürnberg, 1778, p. 74.
The first four, in large folio, appeared without date and place of publication, but were probably printed: 1, at Strassburg, by Heinrich Eggestein, about or before 1466 (the falsely so-called Mainzer Bibel of 1462); 2, at Strassburg, by Johann Mentelin, 1466 (?); 3, at Augsburg, by Jodocus Pflanzmann, or Tyner, 1470 (?); 4, at Nürnberg, by Sensenschmidt and Frissner, in 2 vols., 408 and 104 leaves, 1470-73 (?). The others are located, and from the seventh on also dated, viz.: 5, Augsburg, by Günther Zainer, 2 vols., probably between 1473-1475. 6, Augsburg, by the same, dated 1477 (Stevens says, 1475?). 7, The third Augsburg edition, by Günther Zainer, or Anton Sorg, 1477, 2 vols., 321 and 332 leaves, fol., printed in double columns; the first German Bible with a date. 8, The fourth Augsburg edition, by A. Sorg, 1480, folio. 9, Nürnberg, by Anton Koburger (also spelled Koberger), 1483. 10, Strassburg, by Johann Gruninger, 1485. 11 and 12, The fifth and sixth Augsburg editions, in small fol., by Hans Schönsperger, 1487 and 1490. 13, The seventh Augsburg edition, by Hans Otmar, 1507, small folio. 14, The eighth Augsburg edition, by Silvan Otmar, 1518, small folio.
Several of these Bibles, including the Koburger and those of Cologne and Halberstadt, are in the possession of the Union Theol. Seminary, New York. I examined them . . . Dr. Krafft illustrates the dependence of Luther on the earlier version by several examples . . .
"Saved sinner," a Catholic poster on the CARM Catholic board, noted:
. . . the earliest Germanic version of the Bible was done by Ulfilas in 381. That's more than 1100 years before Luther. And more than 20 years before the publication of the Jerome's Latin Vulgate. Charlemagne had the Bible translated into the vernacular in the 9th century. That was more that 600 years before Luther. The Augsburger Bible of 1350 was a complete translation of the New Testament into German. The Wenzel Bible of 1389 had a complete translation of the Old Testament into German.
(http://new.carmforums.org/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=107&topic_id=92946&mesg_id=92946&listing_type=search)
Myths die hard, though (unfortunately). Thus, the oft-heard claim that Martin Luther "rescued the Bible [in German] from the ashes" or from oblivion and cynical, diabolical Catholic oppression (and the repeated strong implication in Luther of the same), is not only false, but outrageously so.
The situation was no different in other European countries. From 1450 to 1550, for example, there appeared (with express permission from Rome) more than forty Italian editions or translations of the Bible (from 1471 to 1520) and eighteen French editions (ten appearing before 1520), as well as others in Bohemian (two), Belgian, Russian, Danish, Norwegian, Polish, and Hungarian. Spain published editions starting in 1478 with the full approval of the Spanish Inquisition. A total of 626 editions appeared, of which 198 were in the vernacular languages, with the sanction of the Catholic Church, before any Protestant version saw the light of day.
(See: Janssen, ibid.; Henry G. Graham, Where We Got the Bible, St. Louis: B. Herder, 3rd ed., 1939, 98, 105-108, 120) Graham asks:
What, then, becomes of the pathetic delusion of 'Evangelical' Christians that an acquaintance with the open Bible in our own tongue must necessarily prove fatal to Catholicism? . . .
Many senseless charges are laid at the door of the Catholic Church; but surely the accusation that, during the centuries preceding the 16th, she was the enemy of the Bible and of Bible reading must, to any one who does not wilfully shut his eyes to facts, appear of all accusations the most ludicrous . . .
(Graham, ibid., 106, 108)
Furthermore, Latin was not a "dead language" When St. Jerome first produced the Latin Vulgate (itself meaning "vulgar" or "common" tongue), but the universal language of Europe, much like English is today. Whoever could read, read Latin.
The state of affairs in England and for English-speaking peoples was no different. The famous preface of the translators of the King James Bible (1611) tells of the history of English translations, most of which predated Protestantism:
To have the Scriptures in the mother tongue is not a quaint conceit lately taken up . . . but hath been . . . put in practice of old, even from the first times of the conversion of any nation.
Thus, John Wycliffe was not the first person to give English people the Bible in their own tongue in the 14th century, as a popular misguided myth would have it. We have copies of the work of Caedmon from the 7th century, and that of the Venerable Bede, Eadhelm, Guthlac, and Egbert from the 8th (all in Saxon, the prevalent language at that time). From the 9th and 10th centuries come the translations of King Alfred the Great and Aelfric, Archbishop of Canterbury. Early English versions include that of Orm around 1150, the Salus Animae (1250), and the translations of William Shoreham, Richard Rolle (d. 1349), and John Trevisa (c. 1360) (see Graham, ibid.).
Prominent Protestant Bible scholar F.F. Bruce mentions these translations and others in his book, History of the Bible in English (New York: Oxford University Press, 3rd edition, 1978) in his chapter, "The Beginnings of the English Bible," pages 1-11. He didn't make up these vernacular Bibles. They existed. This is historical fact. Henry Graham writes:
. . . we shall . . . refute once more the common fallacy that John Wycliff was the first to place an English translation of the Scriptures in the hands of the English people in 1382. To anyone that has investigated the real facts of the case, this fondly-cherished notion must seem truly ridiculous; it is not only absolutely false, but stupidly so, inasmuch as it admits of such easy disproof; one wonders that nowadays any lecturer or writer should have the temerity to advance it . . .
(Graham, ibid., 98)
And you might want to look at this: http://www.ceu.hu/medstud/manual/MMM/typology.html
What is nonsense is to think that the Roman Catholic Church did not control the distribution of Bibles and punish offenders. Just so you don't feel I'm "inventing lies and myths", the Council of Trent put all of this in writing in 1546-well after Luther started his campaign.
FOURTH SESSION COUNCIL OF TRENT CELEBRATED ON THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL, 1546 Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures
Decree Concerning the Edition and Use of the Sacred Books
Moreover, the same holy council considering that not a little advantage will accrue to the Church of God if it be made known which of all the Latin editions of the sacred books now in circulation is to be regarded as authentic, ordains and declares that the old Latin Vulgate Edition, which, in use for so many hundred years, has been approved by the Church, be in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions held as authentic, and that no one dare or presume under any pretext whatsoever to reject it. [sic: don't disagree with the Church or else]
Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions,[5] presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation,[6] has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, even though such interpretations should never at any time be published. Those who act contrary to this shall be made known by the ordinaries and punished in accordance with the penalties prescribed by the law. [sic: We'll tell you how it should be interpreted and if you disagree with us there will be consequences.]
And wishing, as is proper, to impose a restraint in this matter on printers also, who, now without restraint, thinking what pleases them is permitted them, print without the permission of ecclesiastical superiors the books of the Holy Scriptures and the notes and commentaries thereon of all persons indiscriminately, often with the name of the press omitted, often also under a fictitious press-name, and what is worse, without the name of the author, and also indiscreetly have for sale such books printed elsewhere, [this council] decrees and ordains that in the future the Holy Scriptures, especially the old Vulgate Edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible, and that it shall not be lawful for anyone to print or to have printed any books whatsoever dealing with sacred doctrinal mattes without the name of the author, or in the future to sell them, or even to have them in possession, unless they have first been examined and approved by the ordinary, under penalty of anathema and fine prescribed by the last Council of the Lateran.[7] [sic: We want the printing and distribution of Bibles stop except for those approved by the Church. If you print up a Bible you will be cursed.]
If they be regulars they must in addition to this examination and approval obtain permission also from their own superiors after these have examined the books in accordance with their own statutes. Those who lend or circulate them in manuscript before they have been examined and approved, shall be subject to the same penalties as the printers, and those who have them in their possession or read them, shall, unless they make known the authors, be themselves regarded as the authors. The approbation of such books, however, shall be given in writing and shall appear authentically at the beginning of the book, whether it be written or printed, and all this, that is, both the examination and the approbation, shall be done gratuitously, so that what ought to be approved may be approved and what ought to be condemned may be condemned. [sic: You must obtain permission.]
Furthermore, wishing to repress that boldness whereby the words and sentences of the Holy Scriptures are turned and twisted to all kinds of profane usages, namely, to things scurrilous, fabulous, vain, to flatteries, detractions, superstitions, godless and diabolical incantations, divinations, the casting of lots and defamatory libels, to put an end to such irreverence and contempt, and that no one may in the future dare use in any manner the words of Holy Scripture for these and similar purposes, it is commanded and enjoined that all people of this kind be restrained by the bishops as violators and profaners of the word of God, with the penalties of the law and other penalties that they may deem fit to impose. [sic: If you use or quote any scripture there will be consequences.]
This come from the Roman Catholic Church. Don't tell me they were interested in Bible distribution.
