medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
Richard, why don't you stop beating so subtly and nuancedly around the bush and tell us what you really think?
Anyone who has spent much time in the major manuscript collections in Munich, London, Paris, Vienna, Rome etc. knows that vernacular translations of the Bible were common in monastery libraries. A German Lutheran bibliographer compiled a list of vernacular Bible translations before Luther sometime in the 1950s, as I recall (Volz?). It's a long list.
Vernacular translations intended for circulation among the populace were a different matter--for the very reason raised by the Waldensian refusal to submit their preaching to episcopal oversight: the Church _did_ insist on "control" of what was preached (and all preaching in the vernacular was a form of "translation" and interpretation of the Scriptures) because (1) controversies over the interpretation of Scripture (= over doctrinal matters) would lead to schism and division, hence needed to be resolved and (2) the manner of resolving them since the very early days of the Church had been apostles (later bishops) meeting in council, apostles writing letters (SS. Paul, John etc.) etc.
If unity matters, then some means of maintaining is essential and ultimately, since even bishops meeting in council can end up hopelessly deadlocked, some means of resoloving those sorts of disagreements is necessary.
Those who claim to be pluralistic and to have given up on the possibliity of unity (although more subtle means of Inquisition survive in our day--tenure review committess, peer reviews to decide whose work gets the stamp of approval and whose does not, shifting hegemonic consensus about what is "sexy" and "groundbreaking" and "prizewinning" scholarship, journalism, political parties etc.) and who believe that beliefs have no eternal consequences have little standing to dismiss reductively as merely being efforts to suppress political challenges to power the work of those who understood themselves to be preserving the faith handed to the apostles intact and in unity. That for some of them it may have been about nothing but power and political suppression is likely. But that for all of that that's all it was is prima facie doubtful
Of course, behind this, as I have pointed out on this list before, lies one's worldview--is life (and politics, and history) all, in the end, about power or not?
Dennis Martin
>>> [log in to unmask] 04/11/03 07:04AM >>>
medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
At 07:22 AM 4/11/2003, you wrote:
>medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
>That sounds rather like typical modern spin on the issue, which would much
>rather portray the medieval Catholic Church as an than the complex
>organisation it actually was.
this reaction sounds like it has taken a more subtle approach to the
complexity of the high and late medieval church as license to dismiss that
aspect of the Catholic Church (which gained increasing dominance from the
late 12th cn onwards) -- what i wd call inquisitorial xnty -- as a
myth. certainly there were all kinds of currents within the church, but
that doesn't mean that, for example, translations of the bible were
considered heresy by the inquisitorial courts established in the wake of
the albigensian crusade and that suspicion of translations as major spurs
to heresy were not widespread in clerical circles. to say that waldo was
in trouble for disobeying orders not to preach without permission and
ignore the reaction of someone like Walter Map about vernacular
translations as pearls before swine is like saying Priscillian was executed
as for witchcraft and not for heresy.
virtually every time that the bible gets into the hands of lay commoners
thru translations in the HMA and the early modern period, it results in
serious political unrest. if the church wasn't the autocratic,
controlling, monolithic, freedom-sapping monster of legend, it was not for
lack of effort.
rl
>>medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
>>I'm afraid this is rather an idiot question, but I hope you will bear with me.
>>
>>I've just watched the tape of a recent tv programme on Tyndale and his
>>translation of the Bible into English. 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?
>>Any clarification, or suggestions for beginners' reading, much appreciated.
>>with thanks
>>Cate Gunn
>>********************************************************************** 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
**********************************************************************
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
|