First English Bible Fueled First Fundamentalists

[Agnus_Dei]

Not sure how this escaped the Baptist Board, but I thought I would spread some Christmas Cheer and post for those interested...

The translation of the Bible into English marked the birth of religious fundamentalism in medieval times, as well as the persecution that often comes with radical adherence in any era…

The 16th-century English Reformation, the historic period during which the Scriptures first became widely available in a common tongue, is often hailed by scholars as a moment of liberation for the general public, as it no longer needed to rely solely on the clergy to interpret the verses.

When Catholicism slowly became the minority in the 1540s and 50s, many who hadn't yet accepted Protestantism were berated for not reading the Bible in the same way, Simpson said.
Scholarly consensus over the last decade or so is that most people did not convert to [Protestantism]. They had it forced upon them, Simpson told LiveScience.

It was Protestant reformer William Tyndale who first translated the Bible into colloquial English in 1525…Persecution and paranoia became the norm, Simpson said, as the new Protestants feared damnation if they didn't interpret the book properly.

Prologues in Tyndale's Bible warned readers what lay ahead if they did not follow the verses strictly.

If you fail to read it properly, then you begin your just damnation. If you are unresponsive … God will scourge you, and everything will fail you until you are at utter defiance with your flesh, the passage reads.

Without the clergy guiding them, and with religion still a very important factor in the average person's life, their fate rested in their own hands, Simpson said.

The rise of fundamentalist interpretations during the English Reformation can be used to understand the global political situation today and the growth of Islamic extremism, Simpson said as an example.​

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20071211/sc_livescience/historianfirstenglishbiblefueledfirstfundamentalists

and here:
http://www.livescience.com/history/071211-fundamental-birth.html

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[BobRyan]

Imagine the darkness that clouded the minds of the religious leaders in the dark ages. See how "Free" they thought themselves to be of all accountability.

1. First duping the Christian church to believe that the word of the ruling party shoud be thought of as "Tradition of man having equal value as that of the Word of God itself"

2. Then obscurantism so successful as to keep the Word of God from the language of anyone who might want to "validate" to "search the scripture daily to SEE IF those things said by the wildly speculative religious leaders - was so".

What errors could they NOT insinuate into the Christian church under such dark ages conditions?!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

From the Antichrist thread --

The Bull Unam Sanctam... Issued by POPE BONIFACE VIII reads as follows: "The Roman Pontiff judges all men, but is judged by no one. We declare, assert, define and pronounce: to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is to every human creature necessary for salvation that which was spoken of Christ 'thou has subdued all things under his feet' may well seem verified in me... I have the authority of the King of Kings. I am all in all and above all, so that God himself and I, the vicar of God, have but one consistory, and I am able to do all that God can do." "Christ entrusted His office to the chief pontiff;... but all power in heaven and in earth has been given to Christ;... therefore the chief pontiff, who is His vicar, will have this power."
Corpus Juris chap. 1 column 29, translated from a gloss on the words Porro Subesse Romano Pontiff "We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty" ...Pope Leo XIII "All the names which are attributed to Christ in Scripture, inplying His supremacy over the church, are also attributed to the Pope."

This is an example of the extremes that are possible in a "tradition is the same as scripture" environment combined with "the scriptures hidden from the language of the people".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[mrtumnus]

From the Antichrist thread --

The Bull Unam Sanctam... Issued by POPE BONIFACE VIII reads as follows: "The Roman Pontiff judges all men, but is judged by no one. We declare, assert, define and pronounce: to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is to every human creature necessary for salvation that which was spoken of Christ 'thou has subdued all things under his feet' may well seem verified in me... I have the authority of the King of Kings. I am all in all and above all, so that God himself and I, the vicar of God, have but one consistory, and I am able to do all that God can do." "Christ entrusted His office to the chief pontiff;... but all power in heaven and in earth has been given to Christ;... therefore the chief pontiff, who is His vicar, will have this power."
Corpus Juris chap. 1 column 29, translated from a gloss on the words Porro Subesse Romano Pontiff "We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty" ...Pope Leo XIII "All the names which are attributed to Christ in Scripture, inplying His supremacy over the church, are also attributed to the Pope."

This is an example of the extremes that are possible in a "tradition is the same as scripture" environment combined with "the scriptures hidden from the language of the people".

in Christ,

Bob

I just read about this document in wiki. Very interesting. It appears that perhaps understanding the historical context surrounding a document such as this is quite relative to understanding its meaning and intent. At any rate, wiki says that "Boniface's reputation for always trying to increase the papal power made it difficult to accept such an extreme declaration. His assertion over the temporal was seen as hollow and misguided and it's said the document was not seen as authoritative because the body of faith did not accept it (Collins 2000 & Duffy 2002)."

 

[mrtumnus]

Imagine the darkness that clouded the minds of the religious leaders in the dark ages. See how "Free" they thought themselves to be of all accountability.

1. First duping the Christian church to believe that the word of the ruling party shoud be thought of as "Tradition of man having equal value as that of the Word of God itself"

2. Then obscurantism so successful as to keep the Word of God from the language of anyone who might want to "validate" to "search the scripture daily to SEE IF those things said by the wildly speculative religious leaders - was so".

What errors could they NOT insinuate into the Christian church under such dark ages conditions?!

in Christ,

Bob

Also an interesting quote from wiki:

When modern scholarly study of the Middle Ages arose in the 19th century, the term Dark Ages was at first kept, with all its critical overtones. Although it was never the more formal term (universities named their departments "medieval history" not "Dark Age history"), it was widely used, including in such classics as Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, where it expressed the author's contempt for "priest-ridden," superstitious, dark times. However, the early 20th century saw a radical re-evaluation of the Middle Ages, and with it a calling into question of the terminology of darkness.[1] A.T. Hatto, translator of many medieval works, exemplified this when he spoke ironically of "the lively centuries which we call dark". It became clear that serious scholars would either have to redefine the term or abandon it.

When the term Dark Ages is used by historians today, it is intended to be neutral, namely to express the idea that the events of the period often seem "dark" to us only because of the paucity of historical records compared with later times. The darkness is ours, not theirs.[1]

 

[BobRyan]

By contrast the French revolution and "age of reason" was in direct reaction to the "Dark ages" mentality of inquisition, book burning, and overt efforts to keep the general public in ignorance.

Science, literature and art were all suddenly "released" with the "age of reason" as the last of the RC shackles placed on Europe were finally removed.

Sadly the French revolution itself was an exercise in extreme intolerance in a liberal atheist model in same line of extreme as the intolarnce and narrow-minded hadengaged in the burning of the saints by the RCC.

Thankfully the French Revolution did not retain it's spirit of anarchy for long.

 

[EdSutton]

First English Bible??

It was Protestant reformer William Tyndale who first translated the Bible into colloquial English in 1525…Persecution and paranoia became the norm, Simpson said, as the new Protestants feared damnation if they didn't interpret the book properly.

Prologues in Tyndale's Bible warned readers what lay ahead if they​

Do John Wycliffe (1382-1384) and John Purvey (1388, 1395, as the "editor" of Wycliffe's Bible) get any credit here, for translating (and editing) a version of the Bible into English some 135-145 years before William Tyndale (1530)?

Just wonderin'!

Ed

 

[Rippon]

Do John Wycliffe (1382-1384) and John Purvey (1388, 1395, as the "editor" of Wycliffe's Bible) get any credit here, for translating (and editing) a version of the Bible into English some 135-145 years before William Tyndale (1530)?

Just wonderin'!

Ed

Ed , there were two so-called Wycliffe Bibles . The first one was released in 1382 . Master John may not have been a part of the project as such , but his heart certainly approved of the aim . John Purvey and Nicholas of Hereford might have been the primary translators . This first edition was very stilted in style while trying to be word-for-word in translating the Vulgate . The second edition came out in 1395 with the same two men probably at the helm once more . This edition was more idiomatic than the first . They deserve a lot of credit . However , William Tyndale ( d.1536 ) was the first to translate from the original languages into English .

 

[Matt Black]

Re the OP, it was not the case - in England at least - that the average man-in-the-pew was left bereft of good didactic catechesis: the Church of England clergy continued to instruct their flock and the various Prayer Books (1549, 1552 and 1662), together with the 39 Articles, ensured that laymen did not read their English Bibles in an interpretative vacuum. That said, it took a long time for the laity to break away from medieval Catholicism and the 16th century Reformation 'settlement' in England certainly took time to...er...'settle' eg: the Pilgrimage of Grace in 1536 and Kett's rebellion against the 1549 Prayer Book.

 

[EdSutton]

However , William Tyndale ( d.1536 ) was the first to translate from the original languages into English .

That wasn't the point made by the source cited by the OP, for it said nothing about translating "from the original languages into English".

 

[BobRyan]

Ed , there were two so-called Wycliffe Bibles . The first one was released in 1382 . Master John may not have been a part of the project as such , but his heart certainly approved of the aim . John Purvey and Nicholas of Hereford might have been the primary translators . This first edition was very stilted in style while trying to be word-for-word in translating the Vulgate . The second edition came out in 1395 with the same two men probably at the helm once more . This edition was more idiomatic than the first . They deserve a lot of credit . However , William Tyndale ( d.1536 ) was the first to translate from the original languages into English .

There are a lot of "probablies" prefixed to the idea of Purvey and Nicholas "instead of Wycliffe" for the Wycliffe Bible.

Where are the facts in that post beyond the two translations from Latin in 1382 and 1395??

 

[BobRyan]

Re the OP, it was not the case - in England at least - that the average man-in-the-pew was left bereft of good didactic catechesis: the Church of England clergy continued to instruct their flock and the various Prayer Books (1549, 1552 and 1662), together with the 39 Articles, ensured that laymen did not read their English Bibles in an interpretative vacuum.

How much access did the laymen really have to
1. The ability to read
2. English Bibles

in the 16th century?

Given that the "dark ages for mankind" in europe was still in full force under the tradition-shackled domination of the RCC the English of the 1500's were not exactly "known for literacy and Bible knowledge".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Rippon]

There are a lot of "probablies" prefixed to the idea of Purvey and Nicholas "instead of Wycliffe" for the Wycliffe Bible.

Where are the facts in that post beyond the two translations from Latin in 1382 and 1395??

I don't understand what you are asking . Some historical things are not so definitive . There is no certainty about Wycliff's role in the first "Wycliffe Bible" . He died two years later . The second one was sent out among the populace eleven years after his death . Purvey and Nicholas are usually considered the primary translators of that one as well , converting the Vulgate into a more colloquial English style than the first one .

 

[Rippon]

How much access did the laymen really have to
1. The ability to read
2. English Bibles

in the 16th century?

Given that the "dark ages for mankind" in europe was still in full force under the tradition-shackled domination of the RCC the English of the 1500's were not exactly "known for literacy and Bible knowledge".

In Christ,

Bob

On the contrary Bob . The comprehension of things biblical was perhaps much greater then that at present . But the 16th century spans 100 years . The knowledge and literacy of the people gained ascendancy in the latter half much more than the first half .

We moderns think too highly of ourselves . Even with all the 'knowledge' at our fingertips , we are more like dwarfs when it comes to knowing the Bible as well as many back in the 1500's .

The Reformers that God raised up brought spiritual light back again . The Bible was rediscovered . Superstitions faded among the Protestants while under the preaching and exposition of God's Word ( both written and oral ) .

 

[BobRyan]

The full force of the ignorance darkness and superstition of the dark ages is missing from your post -

The English Bible as we know it begins with John Wycliffe's work in the late 14th century. Wycliffe preached the primacy of the Bible and founded the Lollards' movement, which in many ways harks forward to the Protestant Reformation. When he died in 1384, Wycliffe's English Bible was nearly complete. But his translation was banned in 1408, and the Lollards (who had become revolutionaries of a sort) were brutally suppressed. Many were burnt alive with Bibles hung around their necks.

In the early 16th century the next great English translator, William Tyndale, announced to a learned theologian that "ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plough to know more of the scripture than thou dost." Tyndale was inspired by Luther and dedicated to the task of producing an up-to-date English Bible. The English church denounced him; he fled to the continent. He was declared a heretic nonetheless, arrested near Brussels, and executed in 1536.

Henry VIII banned Tyndale's translation for its alleged Protestant tendencies, but promised the nation a religiously acceptable English Bible. Meanwhile he brought Protestantism to England in his own idiosyncratic way. From Henry's time onward, the English Bible was an established fact of English life. In his exhaustive analysis (1941), Charles Butterworth ranks Tyndale's the early version that contributed most to the King James Bible. The Geneva Bible ranks a close second. It was published in 1560, two years into the reign of Queen Elizabeth.

http://www.bibleliteracy.org/site/News/bibl_news050515WeeklyStandard.htm

It may be that you consider this torture death and carnage inflicted on those who would dare render the Bible in a language readily available to the public to be too minor to mention or too minor to be thought of as having any real effect on Bible literacy.

I believe that the shock and horror with which this barbarism was received by the fully intimidated masses is not much less than we view it today.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Darron Steele]

Not sure how this escaped the Baptist Board, but I thought I would spread some Christmas Cheer and post for those interested...

The translation of the Bible into English marked the birth of religious fundamentalism in medieval times, as well as the persecution that often comes with radical adherence in any era…

The 16th-century English Reformation, the historic period during which the Scriptures first became widely available in a common tongue, is often hailed by scholars as a moment of liberation for the general public, as it no longer needed to rely solely on the clergy to interpret the verses.

When Catholicism slowly became the minority in the 1540s and 50s, many who hadn't yet accepted Protestantism were berated for not reading the Bible in the same way, Simpson said.
Scholarly consensus over the last decade or so is that most people did not convert to [Protestantism]. They had it forced upon them, Simpson told LiveScience.

It was Protestant reformer William Tyndale who first translated the Bible into colloquial English in 1525…Persecution and paranoia became the norm, Simpson said, as the new Protestants feared damnation if they didn't interpret the book properly.

Prologues in Tyndale's Bible warned readers what lay ahead if they did not follow the verses strictly.

If you fail to read it properly, then you begin your just damnation. If you are unresponsive … God will scourge you, and everything will fail you until you are at utter defiance with your flesh, the passage reads.

Without the clergy guiding them, and with religion still a very important factor in the average person's life, their fate rested in their own hands, Simpson said.

The rise of fundamentalist interpretations during the English Reformation can be used to understand the global political situation today and the growth of Islamic extremism, Simpson said as an example.​

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20071211/sc_livescience/historianfirstenglishbiblefueledfirstfundamentalists

and here:
http://www.livescience.com/history/071211-fundamental-birth.html

ICXC NIKA
-

Agnus_Dei: You know I am not one to bash Catholics, or to `slam' on them for fun, but I have to point out something.

In the 1500's and 1600's and the centuries prior, religious disagreement was addressed by Catholic authorities with violence.

Where do you think Protestants got the idea that religious disagreement is naturally addressed with violence? Answer: Roman Catholic authorities.

The Bible translated into English was not the cause of Protestant religious violence in the 1500's and 1600's. It was the cultural assumption, bred by Catholic authorities of the time and before, that the way to `handle' religious disagreement
was by violence.

However, that was then. The Vatican has since officially opposed forced `conversions,' and Bible-centered Christians have seen that violence should be avoided as feasible.

 

[BobRyan]

Some have sadly followed the RC suggestion that "protestants" in the dark ages were not born, bred, raised, trained Catholics. THey were. The inquisition and torture methods of the RCC were the gifts it gave to the Protesting Catholics leaving the fold. They practiced what they had been carefully taught.

The RC dominated sections of Europe -- the "Holy Roman Empire" etc were well known for their torment of dissenters.

Lateran IV makes it clear that the RC policy -- official policy - was "extermination"