Slashdot Mirror

I don't think that the Vulgate Bible was really accessible to the masses. See Tyndale's wikipedia article on his rationale for an English translation in the early 1500s:

"They have ordained that no man shall look on the Scripture, until he be noselled in heathen learning eight or nine years and armed with false principles, with which he is clean shut out of the understanding of the Scripture."

At about the same time in history, Thomas Linacre was studying a Greek Bible and comparing it with the Vulgate. He reportedly said: "Either this (the original Greek) is not the Gospel or we are not Christians." So I think the Vulgate was a lot less accurate than even the earliest English translations including the King James Version.

But I think what's really interesting about this is how the Latin Bible verses were used at the time, and how they were infused with a sense of deep reverence and/or fear. Along comes Tyndale, who translates the Bible from original language sources into English. Among other things he uses informal pronouns Thee and Thou to refer to God. That had to be absolutely shocking to the people at the time, but at the same time restoring a lost aspect of Christianity -- our personal and direct relationship with God.

Now a few hundred years later when people mimic the language of the King James bible in a Christian context, it is with a sense of deep reverence and/or fear, and often used in today's culture to imply a blind religious faith. It's as if humanity somehow wants to create some kind of formality within religion and rely on authority instead of accepting the uncertainty of a personal religious searching.

I should also point out how the early Christian Bible was translated into hundreds of different languages until the Holy Roman church collected and burned all non-Latin translations. So it wasn't just the 1500s that saw language as a tool for control over the masses.

Nope.

The other difference is that you arent CHARGED for reading the bible: try and get an "advanced" scientology text (pure bull, BTW), without forking some serious cash.

No, of course not! The Church has never been aboutmoney or power ever.

It's always been about saving the little ones from a lake of fire and doom.

I'm not standing up for Scientology, but regardless of the saintliness you hold your own beliefs, Christianity (as most organized religions have) has had a very checked past when it comes to what those with power and influence in it have done.

Punishment for translating? Looks like things haven't changed in Europe much.

Verily, the KJV sucks as a translation, but it makes fine literature - not to mention being the source of so much of the modern English speaker's idiom.

But if you are bragging about old school transmissions and razors, then I do hope this (or its like) is the edition you are using. Of course, Douay Rhiems is older (as is Tyndale, but that's just NT) but KJV is the best read as far as complete (and accessible) Bibles go in English. At least (Early) Modern English - 'cause you could be reading this as well.

Just remember, the KJV is plenty errant, despite what some believe.

Well said. Supposedly the witch hunts also went after people who practiced herbalism (and competed with doctors aka "barbers"), odd old lonely woman who kept cats as pets (plus you could take their land afterwards), and anyone who practiced a form of Christianity that veered from dogma (i.e. Cathars). Even printing a bible in English could get you burned alive (John Hus).

The period of the Spanish Inquisition resembled the petty snitching that took place in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. People would make false accusations just to settle scores or grab someone's property.

Hmm .. I think you only say that because you may be blind to the changes that have gone on in the past, and the changes that are currently going on.

In the begining (well maybe not that long ago) there were some pretty big arguments over what things went into the bible. For example one of these things were the Apocrypha, which were out then in then out again. (Do I see a directors cut/special edition cut that includes the sections that were dropped?)

Let alone the translation from whatever to Greek to Latin to English .. to modern day English to ebonics (and I am sure there is one out there). Each translation will change the sense of the text depending on who it was who translated it. As a comparison ... run something twice through babel fish and see what comes out.

I just found this interesting link The Pre-Reformation History of the Bible From 1,400 BC to 1,400 AD

So to say that the Bible is permanent and forever is misleading and ignorrant of the history of that document.

For more on the Roman Catholic DMCA of the time, see The History of the English Bible

Circumventing the copy protection of having the whole thing in Latin really pissed off the RCAA (Roman Catholic Autocrats Association).