 |
 |
As to the question about the bible in the middle ages. It is my understanding that Jerome's vulgate was by no means the most popular version of the bible prior to the eleventh century, that prize goes to the Vetus Latinus version. After the 11th c. the Vulgate became the increasingly dominant version. I know that at least Bede in his commentaries on the Bible felt the need to compare the two versions and often tried to jibe the different meanings of the translations or would choose one over the other. (This last point on Bede I learned at Fordham's most recent conferece in a very interesting paper, the name of whose author escapes me). A professor of mine once warned me that in the Middle Ages, "The Bible" meant "whatever was in your possesion." By this he meant that variations in copying, corrections, and emendations were all to be expected in the innumerable mss of biblical books in circulation. Not only that but that there is no guarantee, especially as one moves away from the ecclesiastical centers that all books of the bible would be available in any one place and only very rarely (as I understand) in any one codex. A similar and even more varigated description of liturgical practices could be given, as well. All of which makes the (I hope) interesting point that to try and talk about The Church in the middle ages (and which one of us hasn't comitted that sin) is more misleading than helpful. Most students of the Middle Ages, even some of the most famous, seem to take the 19th c. Roman Catholic model of the Church as roughly equivalent to the medieval catholic Church. Hope that's helpful, Louis Louis Hamilton Fordham University %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%