Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Happy 400th Birthday to the King James Bible -- The Most Influential Book in the English Language
Fox News ^ | May 2, 2011 | Larry Stone

Posted on 05/06/2011 11:09:57 AM PDT by Alex Murphy

While [King Henry VIII] was still Catholic, William Tyndale sought permission to translate the Bible into English so that even “a boy who drives the plow” might know Scripture. Permission was denied, and Tyndale moved to Germany where he completed the first translation of the English New Testament made from Greek. It was published in 1526, and over the next ten years 50,000 copies were smuggled into England. Tyndale was betrayed, captured, and in 1536 killed for the crime of publishing the New Testament in English.

Although his body was burned at the stake, Tyndale had unleashed an enormous demand for Bibles in “the vulgar English tongue.” A number of translations were printed, including the Bishops’ Bible and the immensely popular Geneva Bible, which was the Bible Shakespeare read and the Bible Puritans carried to New England.

Elizabeth I, who reigned from 1558 to 1603, sought to bring peace among religious factions. But more importantly for our story, varied creative forces came together then to form the most splendid age in English literature. James VI of Scotland was a product of this season of creativity. When James VI became king of all Great Britain and Ireland in 1603, he called a conference to try to settle differences between Anglicans and Puritans. Out of this conference came the decision to create a new translation of the Bible.

[SNIP]

The King James Bible is the best-selling English-language book of all time. It has been in print continuously for 400 years. It has helped form our language; it has given context to our literature; it has inspired our music; and for centuries it was the one book a family would own and read before all others

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Catholic; History; Mainline Protestant; Ministry/Outreach
KEYWORDS: biblehistory; bibletranslations; calvinistshate; falsifiedhistory; kingjamesbible; kjv; tyndale
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-122 next last
Although his body was burned at the stake, Tyndale had unleashed an enormous demand for Bibles in “the vulgar English tongue.” A number of translations were printed, including the Bishops’ Bible and the immensely popular Geneva Bible, which was the Bible Shakespeare read and the Bible Puritans carried to New England....When James VI became king of all Great Britain and Ireland in 1603, he called a conference to try to settle differences between Anglicans and Puritans. Out of this conference came the decision to create a new translation of the Bible.

Related threads:
Wycliffe important in Protestant Reformation
The First Annotated English Bible
The Geneva Bible
A big 400th anniversary this year
Wycliffe Raises $250M for Last 2,000 Bible Translations
17th-century bible represents a period that changed history
Pride of place for controversial book discovered at historic site
William Tyndale A hero for the information age

1 posted on 05/06/2011 11:10:01 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
in 1536 killed for the crime of publishing the New Testament in English

False. He was tried and convicted of heresy in Belgium. (The bill of indictment, IIRC, lists several charges, none of which are "published the New Testament in English". And why would people in Belgium care, anyway? They didn't speak English.)

Paradoxically, Tyndale took the Pope's side against Henry VIII over the question of the latter's marriage to Katharine of Aragon. Tyndale was hunted down and "fingered" to the Belgian authorities by an agent of a (by then) Protestant king.

2 posted on 05/06/2011 11:15:03 AM PDT by Campion ("Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies when they become fashions." -- GKC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Campion

Thanks, Campion. Always nice to have the facts straight.


3 posted on 05/06/2011 11:25:04 AM PDT by bboop (Stealth Tutor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

When the King Saved God
An unbeliever argues that our language and culture are incomplete without a 400-year-old book—the King James translation of the Bible. Spurned by the Establishment, it really represents a triumph for rebellion and dissent. Accept no substitutes!

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2011/05/hitchens-201105


4 posted on 05/06/2011 11:26:13 AM PDT by Lorianne (o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

I visited Berkeley Castle a few years ago, the home of my English ancestors.

John Trevisa, an associate of John Wycliffe and one of the translators of Wycliffe’s bible (which pre-dated the King James by more than two centuries) was vicar at Berkeley in the late 1300s. He is later mentioned in the preface to the 1611 King James translation.

The molding that surrounds the Berkeley Castle chapel ceiling has the words of Revelation engraved on it, as Trevisa wrote them. What he did would have been punishable by death, even with the protection of Lord Berkeley.

These men risked their lives making scripture available to the common man. I felt both awe and great respect for them as I looked that the Berkeley ceiling. They deserve honor and gratitude.


5 posted on 05/06/2011 11:35:28 AM PDT by Jedidah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bboop

Tyndale—I must say—does not get proper credit for the quality of his translation. Later translations owed a heck to his version. It played a great role in the transition to “modern”English. If he had not been such a contrary cuss, he would have lived a life more like Luther’s, and died in his bed.


6 posted on 05/06/2011 11:40:42 AM PDT by RobbyS (Pray with the suffering souls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jedidah

They, like Tyndale, got caught up in politics. Wycliffe and his associates were acting in a time of great turmoil. The Black Death had wiped out some many peasants that their labor was at a premium. That set them against nobles and the Church—which was a major landowner in England. If Luther had no come down on the side of the princes during the Peasant Rebellion in Germany, he would have been finished.


7 posted on 05/06/2011 11:45:54 AM PDT by RobbyS (Pray with the suffering souls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Languages evolve. Even English.


8 posted on 05/06/2011 11:55:22 AM PDT by MrLee (Sha'alu Shalom Yerushalyim!! God bless Eretz Israel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Correct on all counts.

The Tudors were a notoriously dysfunctional family who cared more about political power and the privileges of the ruling class than anything else.

It is debatable whether Henry VIII or Mary was the worst. My vote would go to Henry because 70,000 Englishmen (out of a population of 2.5 million) were executed for mostly petty crimes and perceived acts of treason during his reign. Mary had more people butchered on an annualized base, but her reign was mercifully short.

England controlled vast territories in present day France before the Tudor clan came to power. By the time the Grim Reaper came for Mary, they had nothing and their very survival as a nation was in peril. Religion meant nothing to the Tudors except a tool to achieve and hold political power.

It is precisely these type of experiences and the subsequent events which they spawned (the English Civil War, the misrule by the Stuart clan, the Salem Witch trials, etc.) which led our founding fathers to forbid the establishment of any state religion on the national level.

A lot of Catholic haters like to parade out these type of atrocities as proof Catholicism is false. All they really do is prove that any religion cooped by the state and political tyrants can be perverted to false ends. In the case of the martyrdom of Tyndale, they can't even involve the Catholic Church by proxy. But that doesn't fit their agenda. So the actual facts are simply ignored.

9 posted on 05/06/2011 11:57:05 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jedidah
What he did would have been punishable by death

Not necessarily. Merely translating the Scriptures didn't get one into trouble -- St. Bede the Venerable did it, for example -- until later on, when it resulted in suspicions of Protestant sympathies. The Church's objection to Wycliffe and (moreso) Tyndale was the editorial comments they included in their translations.

10 posted on 05/06/2011 11:59:20 AM PDT by Campion ("Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies when they become fashions." -- GKC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

For anyone sceptical of the centrality of the KJV to English literature I recommend this outstanding work of nodern scholarship:

http://northropfrye-thegreatcode.blogspot.com/

Even the unbeliever will be impressed.


11 posted on 05/06/2011 12:14:58 PM PDT by headsonpikes (Genocide is the highest sacrament of socialism - "Who-whom?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Most influential book in history - the Vulgate


12 posted on 05/06/2011 12:32:09 PM PDT by vladimir998 (When people deny truth exists they must be wrong)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
For the record, the Black Death had run its course some 130 years before Luther was born. Any memory of it would be as distant to him as the Civil War would be to your average 16 year old today.

Even Wycliffe, a young man at the time of the plague, did his most important work in the decades after.

The labour shortage resulting from the plague did, of course, do much to bid up wages and improve the lot of peasants over the next three centuries or so. But the tradition of religious freedom would require another 500 years or so to take firm root in the Old World, with America getting ahead of the curve by a century or so.

It was thus inevitable that these early reformers got caught up in politics, either as an initial means of self-defense in cases like Wycliffe and Luther or as an eventual means to trade places with their former oppressors as in cases like Cromwell and Calvin.

The publication of the King James Bible overshadowed any of these men as a means to bring about the concept of religious freedom and establish it as a cornerstone concept in our new nation.

13 posted on 05/06/2011 12:33:31 PM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture is a good book for those interested in this topic. (Even though I disagree a bit about the KJV's effect on "fixing" the English language. It was the Oxford English Dictionary that had the greatest impact on fixing the language.)

ML/NJ

14 posted on 05/06/2011 1:21:33 PM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

The Lollard movement was associated with the instability of society. Which is the major reason why there was no English translation of the Bible after the invention of the printing press. There was in every other nation. It was more an anti-clerical movement than a religious reform, and since Huss was influenced by it, that made the Crown even more intolerant. Henry V was a heretic hunter for that reason.But the Reformation had nothing to do with relgious freedom as we understand it. That is not what Luther meant by Christian liberty. Cathokics tried to tar Luthger as a Hussite, but he kept his skirts clean by using the protection of his Prince. Luther was strictly an Establishmentarian.


15 posted on 05/06/2011 3:04:37 PM PDT by RobbyS (Pray with the suffering souls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
Bible


"We are compelled to concede to the Papists
that they have the Word of God,
that we received it from them,
and that without them
we should have no knowledge of it at all."

~ Martin Luther



Deuterocanonical References in the New Testament
Translations Before the King James: - The KJV Translators Speak!
EWTN Live - March 23 - A Journey Through the Bible
"Our Father's Plan" - EWTN series with Dr. Scott Hahn and Jeff Cavins on the Bible timeline
The Daunting Journey From Faith to Faith [Anglicanism to Catholicism]
Reflections on the Soon to Be Released New American Bible (Revised Edition)[Catholic Caucus]
New American Bible changes some words such as "holocaust"
Is the Bible the Only Revelation from God? (Catholic / Orthodox Caucus)
History of the Bible (caution: long)
Catholic and Protestant Bibles
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: ON READING THE BIBLE [Catholic Caucus]

Because I Love the Bible
Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
When Was the Bible Really Written?
Three Reasons for Teaching the Bible [St. Thomas Aquinas]
The Smiting Is Still Implied (God of the OT vs the NT)
Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
Friday Fast Fact: The Bible in English
Bible Reading is Central in Conversions to Catholicism in Shangai, Reports Organization
Verses (in Scripture) I Never Saw
5 Myths about 7 Books

Lectionary Statistics - How much of the Bible is included in the Lectionary for Mass? (Popquiz!)
Pope calls Catholics to daily meditation on the Bible
What Are the "Apocrypha?"
The Accuracy of Scripture
US Conference of Catholic Bishops recommendations for Bible study
CNA unveils resource to help Catholics understand the Scriptures
The Dos and Don’ts of Reading the Bible [Ecumenical]
Pope to lead marathon Bible reading on Italian TV
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Books of the Catholic Bible: The Complete Scriptures [Ecumenical]

Beginning Catholic: When Was The Bible Written? [Ecumenical]
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
U.S. among most Bible-literate nations: poll
Bible Lovers Not Defined by Denomination, Politics
Dei Verbum (Catholics and the Bible)
Vatican Offers Rich Online Source of Bible Commentary
Clergy Congregation Takes Bible Online
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: Mary's Last Words
A Bible Teaser For You... (for everyone :-)
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: New Wine, New Eve

Return of Devil's Bible to Prague draws crowds
Doctrinal Concordance of the Bible [What Catholics Believe from the Bible] Catholic Caucus
Should We Take the Bible Literally or Figuratively?
Glimpsing Words, Practices, or Beliefs Unique to Catholicism [Bible Trivia]
Catholic and Protestant Bibles: What is the Difference?
Church and the Bible(Caatholic Caucus)
Pope Urges Prayerful Reading of Bible
Catholic Caucus: It's the Church's Bible
How Tradition Gave Us the Bible
The Church or the Bible

16 posted on 05/06/2011 7:44:51 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

Absolutely the Vulgate!


17 posted on 05/06/2011 7:45:50 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MrLee
"languages evolve. Even English"

True, the KJV is in Modern English (i.e. English from Shakespearan times). Prior to that you have middle English (Chaucer) until the Great Vowel Shift in England, completed in roughly 1550.

The KJV and Shakespeare are in Early Modern English

Middle English must not be understandable to you, here's a sample from Chaucer:

Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote
The droghte of March hath perced to the roote
And bathed every veyne in swich licour,
Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
Hath in the Ram his halfe cours yronne,
And smale foweles maken melodye,
That slepen al the nyght with open y
e (So priketh hem Nature in hir corages);
Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages
And palmeres for to seken straunge strondes
To ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes;
And specially from every shires ende
Of Engelond, to Caunterbury they wende,
The hooly blisful martir for to seke
That hem hath holpen, whan that they were seeke

And Middle English dates from 1066 after Old English merged with French (that's why you have two terms for the same thing -- boeuf or beef from the French and cow from the Old English)

Old English is even more difficult for a Modern English speaker to fathom:

here's a sample of the Lord's Prayer in Old English

Fæder ūre þū þe eart on heofonum,
Sī þīn nama ġehālgod.
Tōbecume þīn rīċe,
And this lasted just 500 years, as did Middle english. Modern English -- most folks can't understand Shakespeare which was early modern English and English is evolving further. Modern English woudl be replaced with post-modern English (example -- most folks don't know the difference between can and may among many other words leading to a further simplification of the language, perhaps the perfect tenses will be removed), why for most people today reading Shakespeare (Modern English) is difficult -- so works in Modern English like Shakespeare would be as intelligible in 400 years as Chaucer is to a person today...

18 posted on 05/06/2011 10:12:09 PM PDT by Cronos (Libspeak: "Yes there is proof. And no, for the sake of privacy I am not posting it here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj; MrLee
see my post 18.

I'm not sure about your last statement. the KJV probably played a big part in creating Modern English (not in "fixing"), but that also includes Shakespeare and yes, the OED later.

however, English is not "fixed" -- or else it would face the same problem as French which tried to keep the language 'contained' and ended up killing itself. English is continuously evolving, which is good for its longevity, but it's already seriously splitting into English languageS (just as Latin split into regional dialects that only by the 10th century really became separate languages

How it changed a Nation? hmmm... well, King James was Scottish by birth and nationality, and his reign was before the Act of Union in 1707, so it didn't change the United Kingdom as a nation. Did it have an influence on the Scottish and Welsh? Probably, but more so on the English. It did lay the groundwork, but the changing of the "nation" was really done by Henry VII's time -- in the 14th century, the English were still listed as "one of the Germanic nations" in church councils and at the time of James I, the population was still only 4 to 6 million in England and Walese with maybe 2 million in Scotland -- a very tiny country compared to France (25% of Europe's population) or Italy (Germany was still underpopulated and still heavily forested -- in fact prior to the late Middle Ages Germany was still heavily wooded like we see in "Gladiator"), anyway, I digress

So, the changing was done earlier, the KJV helped, and Oliver Cromwell (though I personally dislike the man) did the majority of the part in this change of national perception as "English". This was only reinforced in the later wars with France and raised to its heights in the Victorian Era.

19 posted on 05/06/2011 10:30:24 PM PDT by Cronos (Libspeak: "Yes there is proof. And no, for the sake of privacy I am not posting it here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: All
What is also fascinating is King James I's religious policy. Though of Scottish origin, he was opposed to Presbyterianism and tried to establish the Anglican episcopal polity in Scotland to replace the Catholic one

James when he first entered England was given the Millenary Petition by the Puritans trying to get him to remove the Anglican episcopal structure

James rejected this as it was also a threat to the very organization of the state (as evidenced in the later Puritan overthrowal of the monarchy and despotism of Cromwell)

He executed Edward Wightman at the stake in 1612 along with Bart Legate (a precusor of the Quakers) -- though looking at the direction in which the Quakers are heading now....

20 posted on 05/06/2011 10:46:26 PM PDT by Cronos (Libspeak: "Yes there is proof. And no, for the sake of privacy I am not posting it here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Amen!


21 posted on 05/06/2011 11:19:48 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (When the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn (Pr.29:2))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

A clergyman hopelessly entrenched in Roman Catholic dogma once taunted Tyndale with the statement, “We are better to be without God’s laws than the Pope’s”. Tyndale was infuriated by such Roman Catholic heresies, and he replied, “I defy the Pope and all his laws. If God spare my life ere many years, I will cause the boy that drives the plow to know more of the scriptures than you!”
http://greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/william-tyndale.html


22 posted on 05/06/2011 11:26:00 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (When the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn (Pr.29:2))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
A clergyman hopelessly entrenched in Roman Catholic dogma once taunted Tyndale with the statement

Which clergyman? It's telling that these anti-Catholic sentiments are rarely attributed to an actual person.

23 posted on 05/06/2011 11:36:18 PM PDT by Al Hitan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
I'm not sure about your last statement. the KJV probably played a big part in creating Modern English (not in "fixing"), but that also includes Shakespeare and yes, the OED later.

Shakespeare's English is rather different from the English of today, yet it is much closer in time to Jonathan Swift's English than Swift is to ours. Swift is completely understandable to any English reader today. No footnotes are necessary for children being introduced to his work.

Dictionaries intervened.

ML/NJ

24 posted on 05/07/2011 5:48:52 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

Great to see you around, ftD!


25 posted on 05/07/2011 8:07:54 AM PDT by Alex Murphy (Posting news feeds, making eyes bleed: he's hated on seven continents)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Thank you!


26 posted on 05/07/2011 8:02:37 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (When the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn (Pr.29:2))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Al Hitan
Which clergyman? It's telling that these anti-Catholic sentiments are rarely attributed to an actual person.

Give me a break!

Those are exactly the sentiments Rome has always had!

27 posted on 05/07/2011 8:04:25 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (When the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn (Pr.29:2))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Give me a break!

Why should I give you a break? You claimed "A clergyman hopelessly entrenched in Roman Catholic dogma once taunted Tyndale". I'd like to know who it was so we can verify the truthfulness of your claim.

Those are exactly the sentiments Rome has always had!

Your opinions have as much value as your anonymous quote.

28 posted on 05/07/2011 11:41:29 PM PDT by Al Hitan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration; Al Hitan
ftd, that's popular fiction, unattested and made up a few centuries later. It has no attestation and not even a name or a witness for reference. It is not something that Tyndale even wrote about, right?

If you believe fiction like that, then no wonder Dan Brown makes such a good living...

29 posted on 05/07/2011 11:46:15 PM PDT by Cronos (Libspeak: "Yes there is proof. And no, for the sake of privacy I am not posting it here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
If you believe fiction like that, then no wonder Dan Brown makes such a good living...

Amen to that.

30 posted on 05/08/2011 12:25:29 AM PDT by Al Hitan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

No one made up anything, that is a factual event and statement.


31 posted on 05/09/2011 3:07:21 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (When the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn (Pr.29:2))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Al Hitan

Tyndales comment is a factual one, and I believe it was said by Tyndale when he was denied the right to translate the Bible.


32 posted on 05/09/2011 3:11:29 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (When the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn (Pr.29:2))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Al Hitan

The current owner of Little Sodbury Manor graciously allowed us to take photos of the Great Room. It is here that Tyndale had discussions over dinner with visiting Catholic priests and prelates. It is perhaps in this room that the famous discussion was carried on, in which a priest said, “We only need the pope’s laws,” and Tyndale replied that he defied the pope and all his laws and that he intended to make the plowboy to know the Scriptures.)
http://www.wayoflife.org/database/historyenglishbibletyndale.html
And it is likely that he picked up the quote from Erasmus.


33 posted on 05/09/2011 3:19:48 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (When the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn (Pr.29:2))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Actual, it is not factual and has no attestation and not even a name or a witness for reference.

It is not something that Tyndale even wrote about.

It's like Dan Brown making up history -- namely you repeated a fake statement with no attestation (who is this unnamed person who said it? and who wrote it down? Certainly not Tyndale himself, and it was not heard of for centuries after)

34 posted on 05/09/2011 3:20:22 AM PDT by Cronos (Libspeak: "Yes there is proof. And no, for the sake of privacy I am not posting it here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration; Al Hitan
Actual, it is not factual and has no attestation and not even a name or a witness for reference.

It is not something that Tyndale even wrote about.

It's like Dan Brown making up history -- namely you repeated a fake statement with no attestation (who is this unnamed person who said it? and who wrote it down? Certainly not Tyndale himself, and it was not heard of for centuries after)

35 posted on 05/09/2011 3:20:30 AM PDT by Cronos (Libspeak: "Yes there is proof. And no, for the sake of privacy I am not posting it here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Tyndales comment is a factual one

You haven't established it as fact.

I believe it was said by Tyndale when he was denied the right to translate the Bible.

I'm not really interested in what you "believe" about it.

36 posted on 05/09/2011 3:35:04 AM PDT by Al Hitan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
It is perhaps in this room that the famous discussion was carried on

Perhaps not.

And it is likely that he picked up the quote from Erasmus.

I'm not really interested in musings on Way of Life that haven't been validated. Either the priest said it or he didn't. Let's see the evidence.

37 posted on 05/09/2011 3:42:25 AM PDT by Al Hitan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Al Hitan; fortheDeclaration
I believe it was said by Tyndale

Ftd -- when one believes this unaccounted, unfactual, non-historical statement, is it accompanied by a "burning in the bosom" or was it with a "seeker stone" buried in a hat?

38 posted on 05/09/2011 3:51:37 AM PDT by Cronos (Libspeak: "Yes there is proof. And no, for the sake of privacy I am not posting it here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Yea right, it seems so impossible that it happened.

Now, Peter being the first Pope, that is something to reallllly believe in!

39 posted on 05/09/2011 4:14:34 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (When the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn (Pr.29:2))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Al Hitan
And I am not interested in what you believe or don't believe.

What Tyndale did DO was make the plowboy know more Bible then any Papist.

And that IS a fact.

40 posted on 05/09/2011 4:18:07 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (When the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn (Pr.29:2))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration; Al Hitan
Ah, standard diverting tactics

you post a false, unattested statement from some random website that provides no proof for it that it was ever uttered (and by whom it was uttered is also unknown)

when one believes this unaccounted, unfactual, non-historical statement, is it accompanied by a "burning in the bosom" or was it with a "seeker stone" buried in a hat?

41 posted on 05/09/2011 4:21:54 AM PDT by Cronos (Libspeak: "Yes there is proof. And no, for the sake of privacy I am not posting it here.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
And I am not interested in what you believe or don't believe.

That's a good thing - what I'm after is fact, not unsubstantiated opinion. And I'm still waiting for something other than opinion from you regarding the alleged statement.

What Tyndale did DO was make the plowboy know more Bible then any Papist. And that IS a fact.

That sounds more like an opinion. The Church read Scripture in the Liturgy, used artwork to convey the teachings of the Bible, and had translations of the Bible in the vulgar tongues for 1500 years before Tyndale came along.

42 posted on 05/09/2011 4:26:14 AM PDT by Al Hitan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Campion

“Merely translating the Scriptures didn’t get one into trouble — St. Bede the Venerable did it, for example — until later on, when it resulted in suspicions of Protestant sympathies. The Church’s objection to Wycliffe and (moreso) Tyndale was the editorial comments they included in their translations.”

Not correct. Prior to Wycliffe, the Catholic Church didn’t object to translating the Bible. However, Wycliffe’s translation proved to be deadly to the medieval church. And it was dangerous, not because of the notes, but because of the text.

In the early 1400s, the Catholic Church in England pushed thru a law forbidding translating the Bible into English without permission from the Catholic Church - which never came. Punishment included death.

Nor was the Catholic objection based just on notes.

“Moreover, Butler explains elsewhere, it is far safer for the laity to have the scriptures expounded to them by the clergy, than to read them themselves they will thus obtain the true meaning of the passages studied.

‘St. Jerome says, that hearing is a better manner of obtaining knowledge of holy scripture than reading, for the way of hearing is better, safer, and quicker, than the way of reading, and should be followed because it is the more immediate way; therefore the way of reading ought to be forbidden, and the way of hearing frequently recommended. But perchance someone will object, that though to hear is better: yet nevertheless, it would be good for the common people to understand a little? To this, I say, that reading is more liable to lead to error than hearing.’

Friar Palmer also made the teaching office of the clergy the chief reason for denying biblical translations to the laity.

‘Nothing should be revealed to those who are not capable of understanding it: but these lay people are not capable of understanding many of the difficulties of holy scripture: therefore these matters at least should not be written in our vulgar tongue. ... Nothing should be had in the vulgar tongue which might be an occasion and cause of error to the simple: for the mass of the people are led into error very easily; but many parts of scripture, if translated into our vulgar tongue, would be wrongly understood and lead simple people into error; for if the difficulty of scripture led Arius, Sabellius, Nestorius, Frontinus and other heretics into error, therefore even more would it mislead simple people. ... For it is foolish to be scrupulous about what can without peril be ignored; and much of holy scripture may be ignored by the simple without peril, because it surpasses their understanding. ... Some things are too hard and difficult and lofty for simple people: even as Paul the apostle wrote: Even as babes in Christ, I have fed you with milk and not with meat. ... Those things needful for salvation, and no other part of holy scripture, should be translated for them.’

While Butler’s principal argument was the subordination of the laity in conformity to the order of the celestial hierarchy, his final one was very similar: the function and subordination of the laity in the body of Christ.

‘Sixthly and lastly I argue against the aforesaid assertion from the ground of the co-ordination of the mystical body of Christ. ... If the whole body were the eye, where is the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where smelling? But now, saith Paul, God hath made members as it pleased Him. ... All the faithful have been born again in the sacrament of baptism and have become members of Christ. Now consider then the members of Christ, as compared to the hands, back, chest, etc. as A; and consider all the members as compared to the eyes in the said body, as B. And it is argued, that the separate members signified by A are not capable of an action proper to the eyes: but to read letters is an action proper to the eyes: therefore, according to the words of the apostle, they cannot compete with those members signified by B. But the whole mass of the Christian laity is composed of the members signified by A: therefore, on the ground of the co-ordination of the mystical body of Christ, it follows, according to the mind of the apostle, that the common people ought by no means to read the text of holy scripture. This is confirmed because, granting the argument of the apostle, if the whole body were the eye, where would be the hearing, or where the foot: if the feet, (as it were, the common people,) ought to know the law [of God], then the feet would be eyes, and feet and eyes would have the same function, contrary to the apostle in both particulars. Therefore that assertion is contrary to the apostle: and I beg your reverences also, that you would judge this practice by the law of reason: now would it be useful and convenient to offer a book to a foot, or a toe of the foot, to read? And if you decide that it would not be: yet is not this in fact what the advocates of the aforesaid toes would here attempt to do, under pretext of zeal for souls? I beg all the toes to decline such an absurdity. For if a foot, or the toe of a foot, should read like the eye, then the mystical body of Christ would be deprived of meaning. ... And as to how these members of the mystical body of Christ ought to be nourished, Chrysostom, a famous Greek doctor, teaches ... showing that the priest ... is like a doctor visiting a sick man; he first inquires about the stomach, and hastens to cure that, for if the stomach is sound, then the whole body is strong. Thus if the whole priesthood is sound, the church flourishes: and if it is corrupt, the faith of all withers. And he adds, that as the stomach receives the food into itself, and disperses it throughout the whole body, even so priests should receive the knowledge of the scriptures of God, and meditate upon them, and minister them to a sound people. And as through the ministration of the stomach each member receives nourishment, and converts it according to the nature of the member, ... so, he says, in the Church, all priests receive the word, and each converts it according to his own heart. ... Through which pronouncement it is clear that the priesthood alone should drink of the springs of doctrine for the whole people, and from them, as from the stomach, they should receive nourishment.’

Closely connected with this argument, that it is not the function of the laity to read the Bible, is the broader one of the mysteriousness of scripture, and the insufficiency of the human mind to deal with it. Sometimes this is connected with the old argument as to the relative value of the four meanings of holy scripture, and whether a translation would convey other than the literal meaning.”

http://www.bible-researcher.com/wyclif5.html

Other objections can be seen by reading Tyndale’s response to them:

” They will say haply, the scripture requireth a pure mind and a quiet mind; and therefore the lay-man, because he is altogether cumbered with worldly business, cannot understand them. If that be the cause, then it is a plain case that our prelates understand not the scriptures themselves: for no layman is so tangled with worldly business as they are. The great things of the world are ministered by them; neither do the lay-people any great thing, but at their assignment. ‘If the scripture were in the mother tongue,’ they will say, ‘then would the lay-people understand it, every man after his own ways.’ Wherefore serveth the curate, but to teach him the right way? Wherefore were the holy days made, but that the people should come and learn? Are ye not abominable schoolmasters, in that ye take so great wages, if ye will not teach? If ye would teach, how could ye do it so well, and with so great profit, as when the lay-people have the scripture before them in their mother tongue? For then should they see, by the order of the text, whether thou jugglest or not: and then would they believe it, because it is the scripture of God, though thy living be never so abominable. Where now, because your living and your preaching are so contrary, and because they grope out in every sermon your open and manifest lies, and smell your unsatiable covetousness, they believe you not when you preach truth. But, alas! the curates themselves (for the most part) wot no more what the new or old Testament meaneth, than do the Turks: neither know they of any more than that they read at mass, matins, and evensong, which yet they understand not: neither care they, but even to mumble up so much every day, as the pie and popinjay speak, they wot not what, to fill their bellies withal. If they will not let the lay-man have the word of God in his mother tongue, yet let the priests have it; which for a great part of them do understand no Latin at all, but sing, and say, and patter all day, with the lips only, that which the heart understandeth not.

Christ commandeth to search the scriptures. John 5. Though that miracles bare record unto his doctrine, yet desired he no faith to be given either to his doctrine, or to his miracles, without record of the scripture.

When Paul preached, Acts 17 the other searched the scriptures daily, whether they were as he alleged them. Why shall not I likewise see, whether it be the scripture that thou allegest? Yea, why shall I not see the scripture, and the circumstances, and what goeth before and after; that I may know whether thine interpretation be the right sense, or whether thou jugglest, and drawest the scripture violently unto thy carnal and fleshly purpose; or whether thou be about to teach me, or to deceive me?

Christ saith, that there shall come false prophets in his name, and say that they themselves are Christ; that is, they shall so preach Christ that men must believe in them, in their holiness, and things of their imagination, without God’s word: yea, and that Against-Christ, or Antichrist, that shall come, is nothing but such false prophets, that shall juggle with the scripture, and beguile the people with false interpretations, as all the false prophets, scribes, and Pharisees did in the old testament. How shall I know whether ye are that Against-Christ, or false prophets, or no, seeing ye will not let me see how ye allege the scriptures? Christ saith, “By their deeds ye shall know them.” Now when we look on your deeds, we see that ye are all sworn together, and have separated yourselves from the lay-people, and have a several kingdom among yourselves, and several laws of your own making; wherewith ye violently bind the lay-people, that never consented unto the making of them. A thousand things forbid ye, which Christ made free; and dispense with them again for money: neither is there any exception at all, but lack of money. Ye have a secret council by yourselves.”

http://www.godrules.net/library/tyndale/19tyndale7.htm

I’d also point out that prior to Wycliffe, there was no complete translation of the Bible into English, and I don’t think there was a complete New Testament translated into English.


43 posted on 05/09/2011 4:36:35 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Campion
"The Church's objection to Wycliffe and (moreso) Tyndale was the editorial comments they included in their translations."

Tyndale's 1526 translation of the NT had no notes.


44 posted on 05/09/2011 4:38:13 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; fortheDeclaration; Al Hitan

Ref Tyndale’s statement about the ploughboy:

“Not long after, Master Tyndale happened to be in the company of a certain divine, recounted for a learned man, and, in communing and disputing with him, he drove him to that issue, that the said great doctor burst out into these blasphemous words, “We were better to be without God’s laws than the pope’s.” Master Tyndale, hearing this, full of godly zeal, and not bearing that blasphemous saying, replied, “I defy the pope, and all his laws;” and added, “If God spared him life, ere many years he would cause a boy that driveth the plough to know more of the Scripture than he did.”

http://www.ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/fox112.htm

You might not like the source, but there can be no question but that Tyndale wanted the common man to be able to read or hear the scriptures in plain English, and the Catholic Church opposed it.


45 posted on 05/09/2011 4:55:08 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; fortheDeclaration; Al Hitan

See post 43 for WHY the Catholic Church wanted to keep scripture out of the hands of commoners.


46 posted on 05/09/2011 4:56:20 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Al Hitan; fortheDeclaration

“That sounds more like an opinion. The Church read Scripture in the Liturgy, used artwork to convey the teachings of the Bible, and had translations of the Bible in the vulgar tongues for 1500 years before Tyndale came along. “

Actually, very little scripture was used in the liturgy, artwork is hardly the same as reading God’s Word or hearing it in your own tongue, and there were no complete translations of the Bible into English except for Wycliffe’s.

The question was if the Catholic Church could control all access to God’s Word, or if men could read it for themselves. And the problem for the Catholic Church was that it was hard to sell indulgences to a populace that had read the word of God.


47 posted on 05/09/2011 5:00:22 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; fortheDeclaration; Al Hitan

“In March 1563, Foxe published the first English edition of the Actes and Monuments from the press of John Day...

...Foxe’s great contribution, however, was his compilation of the English martyrs from the period of the Lollards through the persecution of Mary I. Here Foxe had primary sources of all kinds to draw on: episcopal registers, reports of trials, and the testimony of eyewitnesses, a remarkable range of sources for English historical writing of the period.[20]

Nevertheless, Foxe often treated this material casually, and any reader “must be prepared to meet plenty of small errors and inconsistencies.”[21] Furthermore, Foxe did not hold to later notions of neutrality or objectivity. He made unambiguous side glosses on his text, such as “Mark the apish pageants of these popelings” and “This answer smelleth of forging and crafty packing.”[22]

The material contained in the work is generally accurate, although selectively presented. Sometimes he copied documents verbatim; sometimes he adapted them to his own use.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxe%27s_Book_of_Martyrs


48 posted on 05/09/2011 5:05:04 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; Campion
Actually, very little scripture was used in the liturgy

I don't know how much you consider very little. 2-3 readings per liturgy, over a period 1500 years, amounts to a lot of plowboys hearing Scripture.

artwork is hardly the same as reading God’s Word or hearing it in your own tongue

I didn't say it was the only way of getting God's Word. It was supplemental to hearing the Word in the Liturgy, especially for those incapable of reading it for themselves. That's what all the stained glass in the old Catholic churches is about.

there were no complete translations of the Bible into English except for Wycliffe’s.

What was the European literacy rate when Tyndale completed his translation? What percentage were English speakers? To make the claim that Tyndale got more Scripture to plowboys than through the whole history of the Church throughout the world, there needs to be some understanding of those statistics.

The question was if the Catholic Church could control all access to God’s Word, or if men could read it for themselves.

No, the question was of making sure translations were done accurately and stayed true. Also, of the people could read, what percentage were capable of reading it in English but were incapable of reading it in Latin?

And the problem for the Catholic Church was that it was hard to sell indulgences to a populace that had read the word of God.

That's a myth.

49 posted on 05/09/2011 5:26:27 AM PDT by Al Hitan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998; Mr Rogers

Vladimir - you have a lot better understanding of medieval Church history than do I, so I’d appreciate any comments you might have on this. Thanks.


50 posted on 05/09/2011 5:32:54 AM PDT by Al Hitan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-122 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson