Where Was The Bible For 1500 Years?

[jasonwhatever]

I was just wondering, where was The Bible for the 1500 or 1600 years before The King James came out? Did Christians have access to it?

 

Thanks.

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

There were several Bibles before the King James, most were considered heretical since they were not in Latin. The Catholic Church pretty much controlled what was out there. The driving factor behind the King James version was the fact that it was in Latin and usually the only people who could read latin were the priests, so the priests had control over salvation and what the general public knew. With the different kings of Europe being confirmed by the church, part of their power was controlled by the church, being given power by God and the church controlled God. James I of England did not like this. He was not the first nor the last to object to being controlled by the church. The single biggest reason that the US is not a monarchy and for the separation of church and state is because of the power of the church over the rulers of that era.

 

At first the Bible was just a collection of manuscripts, some you probably have never heard of. One of them was called the Textus Receptus. It is what the King James translators used to translate into the New Testament. It wasn't until the Latin Vulgate Bible that there was a "Bible." There was a Coptic Bible in Egypt but it contained texts not accepted by the Catholic Church, or not considered canon. Once printing was invented and the first book to be printed, the Gutenberg Bible, came out, was the Bible easily available to all priests. The reverence for the Bible before then came from the fact that they had to be transcribed by hand. The most beautifully illustrated Bibles were made in this way.

 

John Wycliff made the first English translation of the Bible before the Gutenberg Bible and translated from the Latin Vulgate Bible. He was at odds with the church over it because he exposed many false teachings that the Church had propigated when the Bible was only available in Latin and especially the richness of the church. One hundred years later, Martin Luther and John Calvin took his complaints to heart and began the Protestant Reformation. Wycliff was the true hero of the common Christian and wanted to free them from the yoke of the church. The church hated Wycliff so much that after Wycliff died they exhumed the body and burned his bones.

 

There was also the Polyglot and the Tyndale Bible before the King James version.

 

Edit

Just to add a more personal note, it was the study of the history of the Bible and the evolution of Christianity that caused my deconversion back in 1985.

[quicksand]

Great question Jason. Since you asked the question.. what's your take? JGJ gives a good quick synposis, but I was wondering what your insight was.

[jasonwhatever]

I honestly don't know what to think about that. I was just wondering, because all knowledgeable protestants will attest that Catholicism is in doctrinal error. Where, then, was the church for all that time throughout the centuries since they were not catholic, and if they did not have a Bible?

[All Gods Fail]

I honestly don't know what to think about that. I was just wondering, because all knowledgeable protestants will attest that Catholicism is in doctrinal error. Where, then, was the church for all that time throughout the centuries since they were not catholic, and if they did not have a Bible?

 

Protestants didn't really exist as a body until Martin Luther. If they did espouse Protestant ideas they were considered heretics.

 

Here's a good, simple overview of the history of the bible: http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm.

 

Others will no doubt recommend other, more in-depth resources.

[Checkmate]

I was just wondering, where was The Bible for the 1500 or 1600 years before The King James came out? Did Christians have access to it?

 

Thanks.

Biblical Canon from Wikipedia.

 

I congratulate you, Jason, for persuing this topic, as it will surely be The One that will peel away the layer of lies and half-truths, allowing you to break free of damaging dogma and brainwashing. (This is how I got free!)

 

The simple thumbnail answer is that the Bible™ did NOT suddenly fall from the sky in the 17th century, into the hands of Protestants. The Bible is a collection of CHOSEN "holy books", utilized by arguing sects of Christianity worldwide and through the ages. The canon of scripture has been under revision and hotly debated since the 4th century, and if you will notice, it is STILL under revision to this day. The so-called "1611 Authorized King James Version" is just another link in a long chain of books laying claim to be the Werd of gawd. (Note: Today's KJV is not the same as the original 1611 version. It has undergone seven distinct and MAJOR revisions to correct errors ever since 1614. So much for gawd's perfect word, huh?)

 

The Bible™ is nothing but a collection of fables, folklore and forgery, decided upon by many, MANY committees of manipulative MEN with agendas. But please, don't take my word for it. Do your homework. See for yourself.

[quicksand]

I honestly don't know what to think about that. I was just wondering, because all knowledgeable protestants will attest that Catholicism is in doctrinal error. Where, then, was the church for all that time throughout the centuries since they were not catholic, and if they did not have a Bible?

Jason - I don't have a lot of time this AM, so I am going to give you a short answer. The origin of the Bible was never penned as one monolithic book. The Synoptics are based on communities of early christians and not penned by the hand of the a apostle that Christianity has come to think of.

 

But you observe an essential truth not about the Bible, but of Christianity when you state "doctrinal error." The doctrines that Christians believe are not artifacts of the Bible, but largely innovations by evangelicals like Paul (and there is little of his gospels that can actually be attributed to him - very little) to Origin to Augustine to Aquinas, the major influence that Imperial Rome played in the settling of doctrine, and philosophical wrangling by the Cappodician Fathers and the incorporation of Greek philosophy in attempt to harmonize unintelligible concepts like the trinity.

 

I am going to recommend a book to you and I really hope you consider reading it, and best thing for you, it is not a polemical attack against Christianity. The Closing of the Western Mind : The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason by Charles Freeman. He does a great job of reviewing the greek tradition of reason, the christian tradition of reason and arguments for a faith based worldview, and the major figures that brought doctrinal Christianity to where it is today.

 

I hope you check it out. I am going to re-read it again.

[Ex-COG]

That looks like an interesting book, Quicksand. I might dart over to Amazon and pick up a copy.

[quicksand]

That looks like an interesting book, Quicksand. I might dart over to Amazon and pick up a copy.

I hope you do. The annotations are worth buying the book alone.

[Gaunilon]

Good question Jason. Good answers from some of the responders. Just thought I'd add a little extra detail to JGJ's comment concerning the Vulgate being the first official bible. He is correct. It was collected at the Council of Carthage in AD 397. The various bishops at the council included the famous Augustine of Hippo and Jerome, who translated the books into latin from greek and hebrew.

They debated the books and several others to determine which they thought were definitely inspired. These they collected, Jerome translated them over the next several years. The result, a collection of 73 books, was called the Vulgate, meaning it was the version for the common people (at that time latin was the common language).

 

That version persisted unchanged and is still the official version used by the Catholic Church to this day.

 

As JGJ metioned, the KJV version is one of many protestant versions that have been promulgated. Martin Luther removed the books of Maccabees after he lost a public debate in which his opponent quoted them. He later removed 5 more because they were at odds with his teachings.

 

There you have it. There was no official bible for the first 400 years. After that there was the "Catholic" bible, still used by the Catholic Church today. And in the past 400 years the protestants made their own revisions and produced a whole slew of alternate versions.

[Ouroboros]

Just out of curiosity, which Bible translation and canon do you use Gaunilon? Or do you go for the original languages?

[Gaunilon]

Solo, my reasoning is that removing books because they contradict one's beliefs and then claiming to be a biblically based religion is nonsense. As far as I'm concerned that eliminates the protestant versions; they have zero authority.

 

Therefore, if any version of the Christian bible is credible it is the Vulgate. So if I'm going to think about and debate the Bible as a work worth paying attention to, I would like to go with the original since its claim to authority actually makes some sense. But my latin is pretty shoddy; I wouldn't trust my own translation of the Vulgate. So in discussions I usually refer to the Douay-Rheims, which is supposed to be a literal english version of the Vulgate and was published just before the KJV. If I'm really confused about what something means then I go back to the Vulgate and try to work out the declensions myself but it's risky business.

[Ouroboros]

Wouldn't it be better to go to greek and hebrew? Since (from what I've read) that translation from greek/hebrew wasn't that good and some misunderstandings can be done.

[Gaunilon]

Wouldn't it be better to go to greek and hebrew? Since (from what I've read) that translation from greek/hebrew wasn't that good and some misunderstandings can be done.

 

Yup, sure would. But there are two problems: (1) I don't know greek and hebrew, and (2) so far as I know the original texts are now lost. All we have are copies. Apparently Jerome had the originals when he did his translation though, and a whole slew of analysts were able to compare his translation to the originals for a couple of centuries afterwards. So I tend to think that if there are discrepancies between the hebrew/greek copies people have now versus the vulgate, its the vulgate that is more likely to be accurate.

[Ouroboros]

Fair enough. Back to the regular program.

[Artur]

*