Talk:Bible translations in the Middle Ages

La Bible romane

Anyone with access to La Bible romane by Samuel Berger might want to take a look at it. Or if they have online access to the journal Romania for his articles. Srnec (talk) 07:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that title, but Google Books has "La Bible française au Moyen Age". Adam Bishop (talk) 00:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Here it is, but no preview. It is a collection of articles from Romania, volumes 18-19, 23, 28. I was trying to add some stuff on medieval Occitan translations, but I couldn't access the Romania articles online anywhere. Then I found a reference to the book, but it was not in my university library. Srnec (talk) 05:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, archive.org has the journal, vol. 19, 23, 28. No 18 though. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks. Srnec (talk) 03:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Reasons for lack of translations

The article posits a perceived lack of dignity of language for the dearth of translations early on, but makes no mention of the widely-disseminated idea that the Catholic Church establishment wanted to remain in control of Bibles and their meaning, and keeping them in Latin was an effective way of doing that. Any room for expansion? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The various sources seem to show different attitudes to this complicated and disputed aspect of the matter. I would say the main deterrent was simply cost in the manuscript age - a full bible would surely have cost more than a good house. If the matter is looked at in the context of what other books, including secular ones, were found in vernacular form, and by what date, the bible does not appear to stand out, given its size, imo. Johnbod (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly how the article got started; a discussion on the Reference Desk about the Church's supposed conspiracy to keep people stupid, or whatever the argument is. That "widely-disseminated" idea should, I suppose, be mentioned, although we should also take care to mention why it is not the only reason, if it is even a reason at all. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ideally the article could reconcile the rather different tacks that Boyle "There is not in fact the slightest hint that Innocent ever spoke in any way, hypothetically or not, of suppressing the translations."[8] and Deanesly " However, these translations were seized and burned by inquisitors whenever they were found" seem to be taking - not that I have read either. I think matters varied greatly depending on date, and whether heresy was supposed to be around. The Lollards & Hussites did rather change matters, at least locally. But the Bible Historiale, if you could afford one, seems to have never encountered trouble. Johnbod (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm coming rather late to this discussion, but could give it a shot. Deanesly's use of Innocent's letters is selective and misleading; she passes over his numerous concessions that Bible translation projects, as well as the laity's desire to study the Bible, are, in and of themselves, commendable; it's the intent that matters. Leonard Boyle is right to call her out on it. Bible translations were only controversial when and where heretical or anticlerical movements posed a significant threat to the church. Hence why they were banned in Toulouse (Cathars), [possibly] confiscated from the groups in Metz (Waldensians), and officially proscribed but not very enforced for the Wycliffite Bibles in England (Lollards). The Bible historiale was indeed uncontroversial, as it was 1. translated by a churchman for good Catholic French nobles, 2. glossed according to accepted church/university interpretations, and 3. originated and, for the most part, copied out in the open in northern France, where the big heresies never really gained traction. You do see within its manuscript tradition several different competing programs and, depending on the version, signs of overinterpreting or suppressing certain material, but it's important to put the pendulum swing between openness and suppression in its proper scale and context. As for non-controversial reasons that there weren't more translations sooner in more languages, Johnbod is right about the prohibitive cost, not only to buy copies, but to commission the translator's original work, which only a handful of the highest nobility were in a position to do (books of any kind were rarely start-up capitalist ventures. Guyart thanks an anonymous sponsor in his BH, and we know French Kings John II and Charles V commissioned new Bible translations). Anyway, some of this amounts to "original research," not Wikipedia material, but I'll see what I can do to clarify the question and fix some other omissions soon, when I have a moment, and maybe cite a fellow BH scholar who says something similar about translation controversy being tied to the presence or absence of heretical threats (I think Rosemarie Potz McGerr argues this). Jlpatterson (talk) 02:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)jlpatterson

Yes, please! Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

All right, I've started working on it, but realized I need to go back and mine my dissertation for references, more than I'm up for tonight. Y'all can hound me if I don't have an updated version up in a few days. I know next to nothing about Germanic/Slavic/Eastern European translations, so I'm leaving those alone.--Jlpatterson (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)Jlpatterson

• Now some time-waster has removed as uncited: "Some well-known instances of banned translations, combined with the relative inaccessibility of pre-print Bibles, have contributed to a commonly held misconception that the medieval church universally opposed translation and lay access to the Bible. In fact, the church's position on the matter was much more nuanced and case-dependent, responding to the motives of those producing and using a given translation and taking into account the perceived threat of heretical and anticlerical movements in a given region or language group." by Jlp above. Johnbod (talk) 04:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Bulgarian?

Why is Bulgarian continuously refered to as "Church-Slavonic"? Jotaro97 (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Problem with Lead

The first sentence didn't make any sense, grammatically. I have adjusted it to make it English, however I do not think it is correct. It makes claims that are not a synthesis of the article: in particular it confuses standard language with vernacular. For 2nd century Christians, the trade/international language (the lingua franca) that everyone used was Koine Greek, the official language was Latin, and the language they used at home was the vernacular. The whole lead needs to be revised to be less sloppy with terminology, and to reflect the articles. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)