Abundance of Vernacular Scriptures before Wycliff

[RccWarrior]

People who could read at all in the Middle Ages could read Latin: hence there was little need for the church to issue the Scriptures in any other language. But as a matter of fact she did in many countries put the Scriptures in the hands of her children in their own tongue. 1.) We know from history that there were popular translations of the Bible and Gospels in Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norweigan, Polish, Bohemian, and Hungarian for the Catholics of those lands before the days of printing, but I'll just confine this to England, so as to 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. Now, observe I am speaking of the days before the printing press was invented; I am speaking of England; and concerning a church which did not, and does not, admit the necessity of Bible-reading for salvation; and concerning an age when the production of the Scriptures was a most costly business, and far beyond the means of nearly everybody. Yet we may safely assert, and we can prove, that there were actually in existence among the people many copies of the Scriptures in english tongue of that day.
To begin far back, we have a copy of the work of Caedmon, a monk of Whitby, in the end of the seventh century, consisting of great portions of the Bible in the common tongue. In the next century we have the well known translations of Venerable Bede, a monk of Jarrow, who died while busy with the Gospel of St. John. In the same (eighth) century we have the copies of Eadhelm, Bishop of Sherborne; of Guthlac a hermit near Peterborough. And so on..these were all in Saxon, the language spoken and understood by the Christians of that time. Then we have King Alfred the Great who was working at the Psalms when he died. Then the book of Durham, and the Rushworth Gloss and others who have survived the wreck of ages. We have proof of this in words of Blessed Thomas More, Lord Chancellor of England under Henry VIII who says "The whole Bible long before Wycliff's day was by virtuous and well-learned men translated into the English tongue, and by good, or such as be already reproved for naught (which means naughty, bad) as Wycliff's was. For, as for old ones that were before Wycliff's days, they remain lawful and be in some folk's hand. I myself have seen, and can show you Bibles, fair and old which have been known and seen by the Bishop of the Diocese, and left in layman's hands and women's too, such as he knew for good and Catholic folk, that used them with soberness and devotion".
I ask you this: If Wycliff was the first to publish the Bible in English, how in the name of reason can it be true at the same time that Luther, more than 100 years afterwards, discovered it??? Really, people must decide which story they are going to tell, for the one is the direct contradictory of the other. Wycliff or Luther, let it be; but Wycliff and Luther together? That is impossible.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Yet we may safely assert, and we can prove, that there were actually in existence among the people many copies of the Scriptures in english tongue of that day.
To begin far back, we have a copy of the work of Caedmon, a monk of Whitby, in the end of the seventh century, consisting of great portions of the Bible in the common tongue. In the next century we have the well known translations of Venerable Bede, a monk of Jarrow, who died while busy with the Gospel of St. John.

Each new generation brings with it more knowledge and uncovering the deeper secrets of the Sacred Scriptures along with better Translations and the Bible being more readily available to much more of the world than back in those days.
And as Daniel was told here:

Daniel 12:3 Those who are wise shall shine Like the brightness of the firmament, And those who turn many to righteousness Like the stars forever and ever. 4 "But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end; many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase."

 

[S Walch]

Whilst yes, there were different translations of the Bible into different langauges - just how many times were the populace given them?

Wycliffes English translation of the Scriptures was give to at least 1000 members of the English speaking public.

There's a difference between a translation from one language into another, and a translation from one language into another and mass producing it in order to give it to the common public.

 

[a_ntv]

There's a difference between a translation from one language into another, and a translation from one language into another and mass producing it in order to give it to the common public.

Do you have an idea of how much a book costed in the middle age? A single book could costs the equivalent of about 10,000 USD (the main cost was the paper, not the month usually needed to hand-write it)

And the people that could read was very a few ones...and who studied to be able to read, he studied also the Latin: so ANY people who could read knew also the Latin: that is the reason for the vernacular translations were not so important.

 

[S Walch]

I don't particulary care how much a book cost in the middle ages - last time I looked, the scriptures weren't supposed to come with a price tag.

 

[RccWarrior]

There is no need to waste further time and space in accumulating proofs that the Bible was known, read and distributed by the Catholic church in the common language of the people in all countries from the 7th down to the 14th century. I have paid more attention to the case of England because of the popularity of the myth about Wycliff having been the first to translate it, and to enable the poor blinded Papists, for the first time in their experience, to behold the figure of Christ of the Gospels in 1382. such a grotesque notion can only be due either to ignorance or concealment of the now well-known facts of history. One would fain hope that, in this age of enlightment and study, no one valuing his scholarship will so far imperil it as to attempt to revive the silly fable.
Now, it may seem somewhat irrelevant to our present subject, which is simply 'where we got the Bible', to wander off to foreign lands and see how matters stood there at the date at which we have now arrived; But I should not like to pass without setting down a few facts which are generally unknown to our seperated brethren, as to the existence of plenty of bibles in those very countries which they think were, and of course still are plunged in the depths of superstition, illiteracy and degradation. They flatter themselves with the idea that it was the knowledge of the Scriptures which produced the blessed Reformation the world over; and will tell you that it was all because the Holy Book was scaled and locked and hidden away from the benighted Papists in Continental countries that the glorious light of the Reformation never broke, and has not yet broken upon them. There are, unfortunately for them, facts at hand, facts unquestioned, which explode this pious notion. The facts are these:
As was shown long ago in the Dublin Review (October 1837), it was almost solely in those countries which have remained constant to the Catholic Faith that popular versions of the Bible have been published; while it was precisely in those kingdoms, England, Scotland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway, where Protestanism aquired an early and has maintained a permanent ascendancy, that no printed Bible existed when they embraced Protestanism. Holland alone and a few cities in Germany were in posession of the Bible when they adopted the Reformed Creed. Listen to what rubbish was crammed into people's heads:
Luther's first Bible (or what pretended to be the Bible, for he had amputated some of its members) came out in 1520. Now, there were exactly 104 editions of the Bible in Latin before that date; there were 9 before the birth of Luther in the German language, and there were 27 in German before ever his own saw the light of day. Many of these were to be seen at the Caxton Exhibition in London, 1877; and seeing is believing. In Italy there were more than 40 editions of the bible before the first Protestant version appeared, beginning at Venice in 1471; and 25 of these were in the Italian language before 1500, with the express permission of Rome. In France there were 18 editions before 1547. Spain began to publish editions in the same year, and issued Bibles with the full permission of the Spanish Inquisition (of course no Protestant will believe this).
The simple truth of course is just this, that if knowledge of the Scriptures should itself make people Protestants, then the Italian and French and Spanish and Hungarian and Belgian and Portuges nations should all have embraced Protestanism, which up to this moment have declined to do so. I am afraid there is something wrong with this theory, for it is in woeful contradiction to plain facts, which may be learned by all who care to take the trouble to read and study for themselves.

 

[S Walch]

There is no need to waste further time and space in accumulating proofs that the Bible was known, read and distributed by the Catholic church in the common language of the people in all countries from the 7th down to the 14th century.

That's because there's no evidence of such a thing happening.

The RC church did not do such a thing.

The Bible was not translated into all vernacular tongues, nor was it distributed to everyone who could read.

In fact, there was usually just one whole book translated into certain vernacular tongues, and that was it.

The translation was never copied and distributed to the public.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I don't particulary care how much a book cost in the middle ages - last time I looked, the scriptures weren't supposed to come with a price tag.

I have given the homeless on the streets the smaller version of the bible and usually they can be found cheap in the bargain bin of some bookstores and contain the same words of LIFE as the most expensive Bibles.

 

[S Walch]

I have given the homeless on the streets the smaller version of the bible and usually they can be found cheap in the bargain bin of some bookstores and contain the same words of LIFE as the most expensive Bibles.

The Gideons pass out free New Testament Bibles to many differen't people, out of the Gideons own pocket, and distribute them freely.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

That's because there's no evidence of such a thing happening.

The RC church did not do such a thing.

The Bible was not translated into all vernacular tongues, nor was it distributed to everyone who could read.

In fact, there was usually just one whole book translated into certain vernacular tongues, and that was it.

The translation was never copied and distributed to the public.

Just when do you think the printing press was invented...7th century?
Some of the libraries in the ancient world contained few dozen books, hand written, on parchment

 

[S Walch]

The printing Press was developed in the 16th century - and?

Wycliffe managed to get his scribes to do 1000 copies - Seeing as though the church could have got many more scribes to copy out the scriptures, I don't see how they have any excuse other than "we couldn't be bothered".

 

[a_ntv]

I don't particulary care how much a book cost in the middle ages - last time I looked, the scriptures weren't supposed to come with a price tag.

Well, the OP post was debating about the middle-age (Wycliff died on 1384), not about now.

Now you can go in my catholic parish at any hour, there is a shelf with lots of Bible (catholic version), and you can take one home for free.

But that requires that:
- you are able to read (that in the middle-age was equivalent to know the Latin)
- any copy do not cost 10.000 USD

PS in the middle age and in the early church there was the huge habit to memorize whole part of the Bible: that was the only way for the most of the people to 'read' the Bible, and it did not needed any phisical book.
That is the reason because the verse numbers where not necessary: they knew all by memory

 

[picnic]

It's all very well saying those who could read would be able to understand the Bible in Latin so there would be no need for a vernacular translation. However the people listening wouldn't necessarily understand Latin.

Also, although Wycliffe didn't do the first translation of the Bible into English, the English language had changed significantly since the translations of Caedmon and Bede, due to the Norman invasion.

 

[S Walch]

Well, the OP post was debating about the middle-age (Wycliff died on 1384), not about now.

I knew that, and I was talking about the middle-ages.

The scriptures were never meant to come with a price tag.

And last time I looked, Wycliffe didn't charge the equivalent of £5,000 (roughly $10,000) for a copy.

Seeing as though the Church was supposed to help people to know the Scriptures, giving those that could read a copy to read for themselves should have been the obvious thing to do.

PS in the middle age and in the early church there was the huge habit to memorize whole part of the Bible: that was the only way for the most of the people to 'read' the Bible, and it did not needed any phisical book.
That is the reason because the verse numbers where not necessary: they knew all by memory

Oh, I'm sure 90% of the population knew huge chunks of the Scriptures by heart in their own tongue did they?

Get real.

In the middle ages, hardly anyone in the laity knew huge portions of the Scriptures.

Was it not also your church who declared this at the council of Toulouse:

"We also forbid the laity to possess any of the books of the Old or New Testament, except, perhaps, the Psalter or Breviary for the Divine Offices, or the Hours of the Blessed Virgin, which some, out of devotion, wish to have; but having any of these books translated into the vulgar tongue, we strictly forbid."

Lets not also forget the Chruch services that were conducted in Latin.

Don't tell me you're going to say that all of the laity who came to the church every sunday knew Latin are you?

 

[RccWarrior]

S Walch, I suggest you learn your history. You are so wrong on this. I realize it is hard to understand, but it is just exactly how it was.
How can anyone living in the light of modern education andhistory clinganylonger to the fantastic idea that Rome hates the Bible--that she has done her worst to destroy it--that she conceals it from her people lest it should enlighten their blindness, and that the Holy Book, after lying for many long dark ages in the dungeons and lumber rooms of Popery, was at last exhumed and dragged into the light of day by the great and glorious discoverer, Martin Luther? O foolish scotchmen, who hath bewitched you? Do you not see that Rome could have easily destroyed it if she had been so disposed during all those centuries that elapsed between its formation into one volume in 397A.D., and the sixteenth century? It was absolutely,exclusively in her power to do with it as she pleased, for Rome reigned supreme.
What more simple than to order priests and monks and Inquisitors to search out every copy and reduce it to ashes? But did she do this? We have seen that she preserved it and multiplied it. she saved it from utter destruction at the hands of infidels and barbarians, and pagan tribes that burned everything Christian they could come across; she saved it and guarded it from total extinction by her care and loving watchfulness; she, and she alone.
There was noone else to do it; she only was sent by God to defend His Blessed Word. It might have perished, and would have perished, were it not that she employed her clergy to reproduce it and to multiply it, and to furnish churches and monasteries with copies of it, which all might read and learn AND COMMIT TO MEMORY , and meditate upon. She not only multiplied it n its original languages (Greek and Hebrew), which would have been intelligible and useful only to the learned few, but she put it into the hands of all her people who could read, by translating it into Latin, the universal tongue; and even for those less scholarly she rendered it into the common languages spoken in different countries.
Many senseless charges are laid at the door of the Catholic Church; but surely the accusation that during the centuries preceeding the 16th, she was the enemy of the Bible, and of Bible reading must, to any one who does not willfully shut his eyes to facts, appear of all accusations and ludicrous; and to tell the truth, it is ridiculed and laughed out of court by all serious and impartial students of the question.

 

[S Walch]

S Walch, I suggest you learn your history.

I suggest you learn yours.

You are so wrong on this.

I am?

You've shown no proof to the contrary.

How can anyone living in the light of modern education and history cling any longer to the fantastic idea that Rome hates the Bible--that she has done her worst to destroy it -- that she conceals it from her people lest it should enlighten their blindness, and that the Holy Book, after lying for many long dark ages in the dungeons and lumber rooms of Popery, was at last exhumed and dragged into the light of day by the great and glorious discoverer, Martin Luther?

I don't recall saying a thing concerning Martin Luther.

Why is you assume I have, when this is the first post where I've actually mentioned his name, but due to a silly coment by you?

O foolish scotchmen, who hath bewitched you? Do you not see that Rome could have easily destroyed it if she had been so disposed during all those centuries that elapsed between its formation into one volume in 397 A.D., and the sixteenth century?

It had been "one volume" long before 397 my dear.

It was absolutely, exclusively in her power to do with it as she pleased, for Rome reigned supreme.

No, it was most certainly not within "her" power to do whatever she pleased with the scriptures.

What more simple than to order priests and monks and Inquisitors to search out every copy and reduce it to ashes? But did she do this?

Actualy, yes "she" did.

Your church burned all but 150 manuscripts of Wycliffes translation, and murdered many of his scribes. Not only that, 44 years after his death, your Papacy ordered Wycliffes bones dug up, burned, and then had them thrown in a river.


I'm not going to even bother answering the rest of your post, as it comes across as very ridiculous with not much fact resting in it.

Also, the use of paragraphs are your friend.

Your posts are very hard to read.

 

[tulc]

RCCWarrior did you write the OP or did you find it somewhere? Just wondering.
tulc(likes to know who's writing he's reading)

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

The printing Press was developed in the 16th century - and?

Wycliffe managed to get his scribes to do 1000 copies - Seeing as though the church could have got many more scribes to copy out the scriptures, I don't see how they have any excuse other than "we couldn't be bothered".

And how many of those living then could read? Or would have the time to learn how to read?

Might as well distribute reading glasses to the blind.

 

[S Walch]

And how many of those living then could read? Or would have the time to learn how to read?

Might as well distribute reading glasses to the blind.

If they were given more of a chance to learn to read, then there might have been many more who would have done so.

Then those that knew the Scriptures in their common tongue could teach the Scriptures to other people in their common tongue.

Isn't that what happened to the Slavonic Christians?

If only people had applied the same thing to the rest of Europe, then the "dark ages" might've been a lot less than they were.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

If they were given more of a chance to learn to read, then there might have been many more who would have done so.

Then those that knew the Scriptures in their common tongue could teach the Scriptures to other people in their common tongue.

Isn't that what happened to the Slavonic Christians?

If only people had applied the same thing to the rest of Europe, then the "dark ages" might've been a lot less than they were.

Orthodox Christians have always read the scriptures in their native tongue, and yes, Saint Cyril invented an alphabet to give the scriptures to the Slavic people in their tongue. Thing is, most of them new scripture only from what they heard read and sung in the Liturgy.

And, scripture is much more easily memorized when sung to melody. This is why the Eastern Christians sing the entire service.

Eastern Christians also knew the gospel from the iconography of the Church.

But we have always had a different approach than the West.