 |
 |
medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture As in most cases, the issue has nuances. In the section on "The Wycliffite Versions" in The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 2, Henry Hargreaves writes, "But despite such general objections [to the use of vernacular scriptures], no universal and absolute prohibition of the translation of the Scriptures into the vernacular nor of the use of such translations by clergy and laity was ever issued by any council of the Church or by any pope. ... On the other hand, those responsible for the day-to-day administration of the Church, particularly those responsible for the extirpation of heresy, diocesan bishops, papal commissioners and inquisitors, all seem to have worked on the principle that possession of vernacular Scriptures was in itself sufficient evidence to warrant the presumption of heresy." (pp. 391-2) Steve Fanning At 07:01 AM 4/11/2003 -0400, you wrote: >The implication was that the translation itself was considered heresy - I >was under the impression that it was the interpretations of the Bible a >translation could lead to and the consequent challenges to the authority >of the Church that were the real cause of concern? Hadn't large parts of >the Bible been translated into Old English under King Alfred? I know >Waldes got into trouble - but wasn't that because of unauthorised >preaching based on the translations of the Bible he commissioned? Did >attitudes towards translating the Bible harden over the Middle Ages? ********************************************************************** To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME to: [log in to unmask] To send a message to the list, address it to: [log in to unmask] To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion to: [log in to unmask] In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to: [log in to unmask] For further information, visit our web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html