King Henry VIII and Great Bible question

[LittleLambofJesus]

I brought this up on a post on another thread but got now response so I thought I would make a seperate thread on it.

What affect on Christianity and Theology did the Great Bible that King Henry commisioned have?

And does anyone have any views on this particular english version of the Bible?

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-en...m-tyndale.html

*snip*

...Tyndale was then strangled and burnt at the stake in the prison yard, Oct. 6, 1536. His last words were, "Lord, open the king of England's eyes." This prayer was answered three years later, in the publication of King Henry VIII’s 1539 English “Great Bible”.

Great Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Great Bible was the first authorized edition of the Bible in English, authorized by King Henry VIII of England to be read aloud in the church services of the Church of England.

The Great Bible was prepared by Myles Coverdale, working under commission of Sir Thomas Cromwell, Secretary to Henry VIII and Vicar General. In 1538, Cromwell directed the clergy to provide "one book of the bible of the largest volume in English, and the same set up in some convenient place within the said church that ye have care of, whereas your parishioners may most commodiously resort to the same and read it."

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Anyone?

 

[marlowe007]

Henry VIII had always been a Catholic at heart... Concerning the divulgement of the Protestantistic Coverdale Bible to the people, the King, upon his last speech to parliament, shamefully declared:

I am extremely sorry to find how much the word of Word of God is abused; with how little reverence it is mentioned; how people squabble about the sense; how it is turned into wretched rhymes, sung and jangled in every alehouse and tavern; and all this in a false construction and counter-meaning to the inspired writers. I am sorry to perceive the readers of the Bible discover so little of it in their practice; for I am sure charity was never in a more languishing condition, virtue never at a more lower ebb, nor God Himself less honored or worse served in Christendom.

 

[Catherineanne]

I brought this up on a post on another thread but got now response so I thought I would make a seperate thread on it.

What affect on Christianity and Theology did the Great Bible that King Henry commisioned have?

And does anyone have any views on this particular english version of the Bible?

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-en...m-tyndale.html

*snip*

...Tyndale was then strangled and burnt at the stake in the prison yard, Oct. 6, 1536. His last words were, "Lord, open the king of England's eyes." This prayer was answered three years later, in the publication of King Henry VIII’s 1539 English “Great Bible”.

Great Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Great Bible was the first authorized edition of the Bible in English, authorized by King Henry VIII of England to be read aloud in the church services of the Church of England.

The Great Bible was prepared by Myles Coverdale, working under commission of Sir Thomas Cromwell, Secretary to Henry VIII and Vicar General. In 1538, Cromwell directed the clergy to provide "one book of the bible of the largest volume in English, and the same set up in some convenient place within the said church that ye have care of, whereas your parishioners may most commodiously resort to the same and read it."

This is not an easy one to answer, because it is a complex issue.

To put this into context, there had been English translations of the Bible in England since Anglo Saxon times. These were fine because they were slow to produce, very expensive and tended to remain in churches or monasteries.

The problem came with the dual revolutions of the invention of printing and the spread of the Reformation, when unauthorised texts of the new testament, and then of the Bible, began to appear in far larger numbers than could ever have been possible before. Without printing, there could have been no Reformation. Tyndale tried to get permission for his, failed and then produced it anyway, in Germany. The text is his, the translation his; there was no way England could adopt it as official. His version was unauthorised, and the English government, under Henry, felt that they had no alternative but to suppress it, so they did. Copies were smuggled into England from Germany and elsewhere. The vast majority were burned, and today there are very, very few extant Tyndale Bibles dating from the first editions.

Henry spoke many times during his reign about wanting a proper, authorised version of Scripture, but achieving this was not easy. It called for a high level of scholarship, and a huge investment of time and energy from whoever wrote it. It also called for someone of unimpeachable moral character; easy to claim, difficult to achieve in a time of changing beliefs. It did not need Tyndale to convince Henry of this, but Henry himself would never have admitted that Tyndale was anything other than a heretic for producing an unofficial Bible. Henry was not known for changing his mind about anything, once it was made up, and his word was law.

Miles Coverdale produced his Bible relatively late in Henry's reign. For the vast majority of this reign there was no authorised version of the Bible available in England, and any copies which were found were burned. As it turns out, Coverdale's version plagarises Tyndale to a significant level. Both his Bible and the AV which followed are largely Tyndale's work.

So, to your question; what effect did the Great Bible have? Clearly some, but perhaps not as much as either Tyndale or the AV. But it must have been valid from the time of authorisation until 1611, which covers the whole remainder of the Tudor period, which is one of the most interesting and formative periods in English history.

I would say, check out Shakespeare and see how much he quotes the Bible. That will give you one approach to finding an answer as to how far later Tudor England was influenced by the Great Bible.

 

[Catherineanne]

Henry VIII had always been a Catholic at heart... Concerning the divulgement of the Protestantistic Coverdale Bible to the people, the King, upon his last speech to parliament, shamefully declared:

Henry would never have authorised a 'Protestantistic' (whatever that might mean) Bible. Henry lived and died a Catholic, and was buried with full Catholic rites.

The Protestant Church in England began with those manipulating Edward, not with Henry. Their machinations were reversed by Mary, and then a more balanced, more tolerant protestantism instated by Elizabeth. But Henry was always a Catholic, albeit not always a Roman.

 

[Rhamiel]

Henry would never have authorised a 'Protestantistic' (whatever that might mean) Bible. Henry lived and died a Catholic, and was buried with full Catholic rites.

The Protestant Church in England began with those manipulating Edward, not with Henry. Their machinations were reversed by Mary, and then a more balanced, more tolerant protestantism instated by Elizabeth. But Henry was always a Catholic, albeit not always a Roman.

once he denied the authority of the Pope he became protestant, the fact that he was harsh on other protestants should come as no great shock

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Contrary to what the KJVO would believe, there are some translation issues with the KJV. I used to use it because I liked the language and because it's been well-studied over the past 400 years and we know the faults.

There are a couple verses that are not in modern Bible translations, since they exist only in one manuscript or something, such as the famous Johannine Comma which appears in some Latin manuscripts but not the Greek:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Of course we all (well, most of us) believe in the Trinity regardless of that verse so that doesn't matter much.

The only thing that I know of in the KJV that is Protestant in the text is this:

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink [this] cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

Therefore, whosoever shall eat of this bread, or drink of the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

The word in Greek is clearly "or" and later translations have corrected this problem. The translators knew this but changed it to "and" to justify their theological position, which was that the faithful must receive both the Body and the Blood to receive Jesus (what's half of Jesus?). This was the position originally adopted by the Hussites (Jan Hus) and then by the English.

For a time, the Catholic Church had been only giving the Host to the faithful and reserving the Cup for the celebrating priest, not because the priest is special but out of fear of spilling the Precious Blood. But since anyone who eats or drinks is guilty of the Body and the Blood, we are assured that Christ is fully present under both elements. To compromise, the pope granted an indult (an allowance), for those areas where this was an issue, to receive under both kinds. Since Vatican II, modern Masses (in contrast to traditional Masses) have included the reception of the Cup by the faithful which was also the practice during the first millennium and in the East.

Other than that, basic theology is the same. I had one woman online, after I kept arguing various points of Catholicism (she'd ask about one then jump to another without getting into detail about one), who then interjected that these verses didn't matter because I was quoting from a Catholic Bible and not the King James Bible. I rolled my eyes and reposted with the KJV... There are differences in translations but it's all the same Bible (as long as you don't get really messed up like the Jehovah Witnesses' New World Translation or things like The Message). If there are conflicts between translations, you can always go look up the original Greek in Strong's or something. It's handy to have different Bible versions available since different groups try to "spin" the language in different ways. There aren't blatant differences, it's just a spin, like the news - same news story told by Fox and CNN will sound very different but as long as they tell the same facts, it's the same story but it's good to hear both sides.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

(Double-Post, sorry)

 

[PaladinValer]

once he denied the authority of the Pope he became protestant, the fact that he was harsh on other protestants should come as no great shock

Are EOs and OOs Protestant? How about OCs?

Anglican=Catholic, just not Vatican, Eastern, or Oriental.

 

[Catherineanne]

once he denied the authority of the Pope he became protestant, the fact that he was harsh on other protestants should come as no great shock

I'm afraid this is rather inaccurate. Henry was never a Protestant. He dabbled with listening to various promulgators of protestantism along the way, but he remained a Catholic all his life. Which is why he was harsh on protestants once he had ascertained that their views were (in his opinion) heretical.

The establishment of the Church of England was on the basis of a faith which pre-dated the arrival of Roman Catholicism, and which therefore had no need to answer to Rome. There were plenty of Catholics in England who did NOT support the power of the Pope in this land, not least because the Pope was then far more of a political power than he is now. Thomas More for one; revered now as a Catholic martyr, he certainly had no time for England bowing to the Pope, and never supported any abdication of England's control of its own church.

The English Reformation was predicated on the status of England as an Empire, because Empires answer to no other power but themselves, and therefore England had no need to answer to Rome, on any aspect of its government, its church or its legislature.

It involved the full enforcement of the Statute of Praemunire, which was instigated by the Parliament of Edward III as long ago as 1353. In other words, the curtailing of the Pope's jurisdiction in England was effected by Edward III, and enforced by Henry VIII.

But Henry did NOT introduce protestantism, and was not ever himself a protestant.

 

[Sphinx777]

Henry VIII (28 June 1491 – 28 January 1547) was King of England from 21 April 1509 until his death. He was also Lord of Ireland (later King of Ireland) and claimant to the Kingdom of France. Henry was the second monarch of the House of Tudor, succeeding his father, Henry VII.

Henry VIII was a significant figure in the history of the English monarchy. Although in the great part of his reign he brutally suppressed the influence of the Protestant Reformation in England, a movement having some roots with John Wycliffe in the 14th century, he is more popularly known for his role in the separation of the Church of England from the Roman Catholic Church. Henry's struggles with Rome ultimately led to the separation of the Church of England from papal authority, the Dissolution of the Monasteries, and establishing himself as the Supreme Head of the Church of England. Although some claim that Henry became a Protestant on his death-bed, he advocated a ceremony and doctrine akin to Catholicism throughout his life, even after his excommunication from the Roman Catholic Church following his annulment from his first wife and the marriage to his second wife. Royal support for the English Reformation began with his heirs, the devout Edward VI and the renowned Elizabeth I, whilst daughter Mary I temporarily reinstated papal authority over England. Henry also oversaw the legal union of England and Wales with the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542. He is also noted for his six wives, two of whom were beheaded.

​

 

[Catherineanne]

Are EOs and OOs Protestant? How about OCs?

Anglican=Catholic, just not Vatican, Eastern, or Oriental.

This is correct. The Anglican communion is Catholic. Bizarrely enough, however, I believe it is true to say that it is also protestant.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

This is correct. The Anglican communion is Catholic. Bizarrely enough, however, I believe it is true to say that it is also protestant.

I like the way you put that

 

[Catherineanne]

He is also noted for his six wives, two of whom were beheaded.

Henry's first marriage, to Catherine of Aragon, was annulled. His second, to Anne Boleyn, was annulled by Cranmer the day before her execution. His third, to Jane Seymour, ended with her death. His fourth, to Anne of Cleves, was not consummated, so was annulled. His fifth, to Katherine Howard, ended with her execution, and his sixth wife, Katherine Parr, outlived him.

Therefore, in strict legal terms, he had three wives; Jane Seymour, Katherine Howard and Katherine Parr.

For Rome it would be more complicated, probably comprising Catherine of Aragon (the union with Anne Boleyn would be bigamous to Rome, therefore null), Jane Seymour, Katherine Howard and Katherine Parr.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

once he denied the authority of the Pope he became protestant, the fact that he was harsh on other protestants should come as no great shock

It's like when my friend wanted me to watch the movie "Luther", Luther was in front of the tribunal saying he was going to consent to everything and then he comes back one day and says that he will not recant unless they can sit down with him and work out every question he had from Scripture alone, he refused to obey. I said "That's when he became a Protestant." Prior to that, he was just lost and confused and dissident.

Many Lutherans will say that he was just trying to reform the Church, he had no intention of starting his own religion in the beginning, he just wanted to curb the abuses such as regarding indulgences. But when he said that he wouldn't obey because his "conscience" wouldn't allow him, that's when he became a Protestant.

When King Henry lusted after Anne Boleyn, he was just a sinner like any man. But when the pope refused to grant him an annulment from Catherine because there were no grounds (not having a boy doesn't count), he declared himself head of the Church and gave himself an annulment. That's when he became a Protestant.

The Protestant attack differed from the rest especially in this characteristic, that its attack did not consist in the promulgation of a new doctrine or of a new authority, that it made no concerted attempt at creating a counter-Church, but had for its principle the denial of unity. It was an effort to promote that state of mind in which a Church in the old sense of the word - that is, an infallible, united, teaching body, a Person speaking with Divine authority - should be denied; not the doctrines it might happen to advance, but its very claim to advance them with unique authority. Thus, one Protestant may affirm, as do the English Puseyites, the truth of all the doctrines underlying the Mass - the Real Presence, the Sacrifice, the sacerdotal power of consecration, etc. - another Protestant may affirm that all such conceptions are false, yet both these Protestants are Protestant because they communicate in the fundamental conception that the Church is not a visible, definable and united personality, that there is no central infallible authority, and that therefore each is free to choose his own set of doctrines.

I might add that both those who follow those sides are not Protestant but both could be Anglicans! Pusey is a Protestant because he believes that these things are matters of personal opinion, the Eastern Orthodox are not Protestant because they believe in the infallible authority of the Church. Protestantism is the me heresy - that individuals are the only source of authority.

Protestant claims of "conscience" also appear among those who call themselves "Catholics". I have heard that 90% of Catholics use birth control claiming their "conscience" doesn't object. On the other side, sedevacantists ("vacant seat") are ultra-traditionalist Catholics who believe that Vatican II was a heretical council and that there is no pope. These too are Protestantized "Catholics" because they believe that they as individuals are the ultimate source of authority to interpret Scripture and Tradition rather than the Church. It doesn't matter what you believe, it's the problem of placing the individual as the sole source of authority -- that's the heresy of Protestantism.

Also, the separation of England from the Catholic Church was about power. He declared he was the head of the church and the State. So when you have, say, anabaptists threatening that authority, of course he is going to persecute them. You could essentially be as "catholic" or "protestant" as you want as long as you submitted to the absolute authority of the King, that's what makes Anglicanism the "via media". But once you rejected that authority, you're liable to be burned at the stake for heresy.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Therefore, in strict legal terms, he had four wives. For Rome they would be Catherine of Aragon (the union with Anne Boleyn would be bigamous to Rome, therefore null), Jane Seymour, Katherine Howard and Katherine Parr. For Henry himself, they would be Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour, Katherine Howard and Katherine Parr.

And according to Divine Law, he had one - Catherine of Aragon. The rest were adultery and murder.

 

[Catherineanne]

I like the way you put that

 

[Catherineanne]

And according to Divine Law, he had one - Catherine of Aragon. The rest were adultery and murder.

Not so. In this, as in your other comments, you demonstrate a woeful lack of historical understanding.

Even by strict Roman standards, Henry was entitled to marry Jane Seymour, not least because she was very much a Roman Catholic herself, and in favour of the 'Old Church.' Had she lived, she might possibly have been able to curtail some of the worst excesses of the Reformation. Katherine Howard was also a Roman sympathiser, and Katherine Parr came very close to being executed herself for not agreeing with everything Henry wanted to do.

Only in the case of Anne Boleyn did Henry marry one woman while (in the eyes of Rome) still married to another. In every other case, having learned from experience, he made sure the wife was safely dead at least a couple of days before the next wedding.

 

[PaladinValer]

According to Divine Law, the Pope had no business even letting Henry have his brothers' wife.

 

[Catherineanne]

Protestantism is the me heresy - that individuals are the only source of authority.

Twaddle.

This is protestantism:

Anglicans Online | The Thirty-Nine Articles