{"id":5414,"date":"2016-01-08T10:45:54","date_gmt":"2016-01-08T14:45:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/admin.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?p=5414"},"modified":"2025-04-11T12:03:28","modified_gmt":"2025-04-11T16:03:28","slug":"were-vernacular-bibles-unknown-before-luther","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/were-vernacular-bibles-unknown-before-luther.html","title":{"rendered":"Were Vernacular Bibles Unknown Before Luther?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>
<\/div>\n
Luther\u2019s Dubious Claims About the Supposed Utter Obscurity of the Bible Before His Translation<\/strong><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\"BibleMentel\"<\/a><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
In 1466, 17 years before Martin Luther was even born,\u00a0Johannes Mentelin\u00a0printed the Mentel Bible, a\u00a0High German\u00a0vernacular Bible, at\u00a0Strasbourg. I<\/span>t was reprinted at least 13 times up till 1518. The copy above dates from 1518 and was sold by<\/span> The Philadelphia Rare Books & Manuscripts Company<\/a>.<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
*****<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
(6-15-11)<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
* * * * *<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
[Martin Luther\u2019s own words below will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>; Hartmann Grisar\u2019s footnotes (only) in\u00a0red<\/span>]<\/div>\n

The big myth under consideration is the commonly heard legend among Protestants (especially of an anti-Catholic bent) of Catholic hostility to the Bible and desire to keep it out of the hands of the people, for fear that its doctrines will be exposed as contrary to the Bible. I have written about the falsity of this charge, and related issues, several times.<\/p>\n

See also in this regard, the wonderfully informative article by Andrew C. Gow,\u00a0\u201cThe Contested History of\u00a0 a Book: The German Bible in the Later Middle Ages and Reformation in Legend, Ideology, and Scholarship\u201d\u00a0<\/a>(\u00a0The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures<\/i>, Vol. 9, Article 13 [2009] ); and,\u00a0\u201cLuther\u2019s Condemnation of the Rostock New Testament,\u201d<\/a>\u00a0by Kenneth A. Strand.<\/p>\n

Most argue (including most Catholics) that Luther\u2019s translation was indeed far superior to previous German ones. But the controversy at hand was\u00a0whether the Bible was available to the populace in (mostly High) German to any significant extent before Luther<\/i>. It certainly was. Yet Luther polemicized in his usual hyper-rhetorical fashion, and claimed that it\u00a0wasn\u2019t<\/i>.<\/p>\n

Luther stated:<\/p>\n

\n
How much more did we invite this fate when we threw the Scriptures and Saint Paul\u2019s epistles under the bench, and, like swine in husks, wallowed in man\u2019s nonsense!<\/div>\n

(Sermons of Martin Luther<\/i><\/a>, \u201cThe Twofold Use of the Law and Gospel: \u2018Letter\u2019 and \u2018Spirit'\u201d,\u00a0section 18<\/a>; see also a\u00a0second source<\/a>\u00a0for this portion)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And again he repeats the mantra:<\/p>\n

\n
No false doctrine or heresy ever arose, which did not carry with it that mark which Christ here gives:\u2014that is, which did not command, ordain, and teach, those works as necessary to be done, which God never commanded. And the reason why the world is seduced as it is, is none other, than because it suffers itself to be led by maddened reason, and permit the Word of God to fall into disuse, as if hidden under a bench, or laid up in rust; not at all regarding what that Word saith, but following the deluded sight of its own eyes, wherever it perceives any thing new or uncommon.<\/div>\n

(Select Works<\/i><\/a>, translated by Henry Cole, 1826, \u201cProfessors and Prophets Known by Their Fruits\u201d,\u00a0p. 544<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As early as 1518<\/a>\u00a0he had proclaimed:<\/p>\n

. . . the Holy Word of God has not only been laid under the bench but has almost been destroyed by dust and filth.<\/span><\/p>\n

(Preface to the complete edition of\u00a0A German Theology<\/i>, LW, vol. 31, 75-76; WA 1, 378 f.)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In his\u00a0Commentary on Peter and Jude<\/i>\u00a0(1523), Luther opines:<\/p>\n

\n
But up to this time, the idea that the laity should read the Scriptures has been treated with derision. For in this the devil has hit on a fine trick to tear the Bible out of the hands of the laity; and he has thought thus: If I can keep the laity from reading the Scriptures, I will then turn the priests from the Bible to Aristotle, and so let them gossip as they will, the laity must hear just what they preach; while if the laity should read the Scriptures, the priests would have to study them, too, in order that they might not be detected and overcome.<\/div>\n

(translated by John Nichols Lenker [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 2005]; comment for 1 Peter 3:15;\u00a0p. 158<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

An even more sweeping instance of this sloganistic phraseology of \u201cunder the bench\u201d occurs in Luther\u2019s\u00a0Large Catechism<\/i>\u00a0(April 1529):<\/p>\n

43] For where He does not cause it to be preached and made alive in the heart, so that it is understood, it is lost, as was the case under the Papacy, where faith was entirely put under the bench, and no one recognized Christ as his Lord or the Holy Ghost as his Sanctifier, that is, no one believed that Christ is our Lord in the sense that He has acquired this treasure for us, without our works and merit, and made us acceptable to the Father. What, then, was lacking? 44] This, that the Holy Ghost was not there to reveal it and cause it to be preached; but men and evil spirits were there, who taught us to obtain grace and be saved by our works. 45] Therefore it is not a Christian Church either; for where Christ is not preached, there is no Holy Ghost who creates, calls, and gathers the Christian Church, without which no one can come to Christ the Lord.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

(\u201cThe Apostles\u2019 Creed\u201d; Article III<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Further support for the notion that Luther perpetuated the myth of almost total ignorance of and inaccessibility of the Bible before he brought it to light (much like his similarly absurd views of having \u201crediscovered the gospel\u201d (as if Catholics didn\u2019t have a clue about it before he arrived on the scene), comes from Hartmann Grisar\u2019s six-volume biography,\u00a0Luther\u00a0<\/i>(the following from\u00a0Vol. 5 from 1916<\/a>):<\/p>\n

. . . it is instructive from the psychological standpoint to trace the development in Luther\u2019s mind of the fable to be dealt with more fully below that, under Popery, the Bible had been discarded and that he, Luther, had brought it once more to light. . . .<\/p>\n

When afterwards he had been dazed by his great success with his translation of the Bible he was led to fancy that he was the first to open up the domain of Holy Scripture. This impression is closely bound up with the arbitrary pronouncements, even on the weightiest questions of the Canon, which we find scattered throughout his prefaces to the books of the Bible. He frequently repeats that he had forced all his opponents to take up the study of the Bible and that it was he alone who had made them see the need of their devoting themselves to this branch of learning so as to be able to refute him. Here of course he is exaggerating the facts of the case. Accustomed as he was to hyperbole, we soon find him declaring, first as a paradox and then as actual fact, that the Bible had been buried in oblivion among the Catholics. The Papal Antichrist had destroyed all reverence for the Bible and all understanding of it; only that all men without exception might not run headlong to spiritual destruction had Christ, as it were by\u00a0\u201cforce,\u201d\u00a0<\/span>preserved the\u00a0\u201csimple text of the Gospel on the lecterns\u201d \u201ceven under the rule of Antichrist.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

[Footnote: \u201cWerke,\u201d Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 645 ; Erl. ed., 65, p. 122, \u201cSendbrieff von Dolmetzschefi.\u201d]<\/div>\n

(pp. 534-535)<\/p>\n

The Bible in the Ages before Luther\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

It would be to perpetuate a prejudice all too long current among Protestants, founded on Luther\u2019s often false or at least exaggerated statements, were one to fail to recognise how widely the Bible was known even before Luther\u2019s day and to what an extent it was studied among educated people. Modern research, not seldom carried out by open-minded Protestants, has furnished some surprising results in this respect, so that one of the most recent and diligent of the Protestant workers in this field could write: \u201cIf everything be taken into account it will no longer be possible to say as the old polemics did, that the Bible was a sealed book to both theologians and laity. The more we study the Middle Ages, the more does this fable tend to dissolve into thin air.\u201d \u201cThe Middle Ages concerned themselves with Bible translation much more than was formerly supposed.\u201d<\/p>\n

[Footnote: Kropatscheck, \u201cDas Schriftprinzip der lutherischen Kirche,\u201d 1, 1904, p. 163. On the German translations see below, p. 542 ff.]<\/div>\n

According to a careful summary recently published by Franz Falk no less than 156 different Latin editions of the Bible were printed in the period between the discovery of the art of printing and the year of Luther\u2019s excommunication, i.e. from 1450 to 1520. To this must also be added at that time many translations of the whole Bible, many of them emanating from what was to be the home of the innovations, viz. 17 German, 11 Italian, 10 French, 2 Bohemian, 1 Belgian, 1 Limousine and 1 Russian edition, making in all, with the 6 Hebrew editions also known, 199 editions of the complete Bible. Of the German editions 14 are in the dialect of Upper Germany.<\/p>\n

[Footnote: F. Falk, \u201cDie Bibel am Ausgange des MA. ihre Kenntnis und ihre Verbreitung,\u201d Cologne, 1905, pp. 24, 91 ff.]<\/div>\n

Besides this the common people also possessed extracts of the Sacred Book, the purchase of the entire Bible being beyond their slender means. The Psalter and the Postils were widely known and both played a great part in the religious life of the Middle Ages. The Psalter, or German translation of the 150 Psalms, was used as a manual of instruction and a prayer-book for both clergy and laity. Twenty-two translations dating from the Middle Ages are extant, and the latter editions extend from the \u2018seventies of the 15th to the \u2018twenties of the 16th century. The Postils was the collection of lessons from both Old and New Testaments, prescribed to be read on the Sundays. This collection sufficed for the people and provided them with useful reading matter, with which, moreover, they were rendered even more familiar owing to the homilies on these very excerpts usually given on the Sundays. The early printers soon helped to spread this form of literature. We still have no fewer than 103 printed German editions of the Postils (often known as Plenaries) dating from the above period.<\/p>\n

[Footnote: Falk, ib., p. 27 ff.]<\/div>\n

. . . Even a superficial glance at the Middle Ages,\u201d says Risch, \u201ccannot fail to show us the gradual upgrowth of a fixed German Biblical vocabulary. Luther here could dip into a rich treasure-house and select the best. \u2026 In laying such stress on Luther\u2019s indebtedness to the past we have no wish to call into question the real originality of his translation.\u201d<\/p>\n

[Footnote: \u201cN. kirchl. Zeitschr.,\u201d 1911, p. 141.]<\/div>\n

\u201cThat, during the Middle Ages,\u201d says another Protestant scholar, \u201cmore particularly in the years which immediately preceded Luther\u2019s appearance, the Bible was a well-spring completely choked up, and the entrance to which was jealously guarded, used to be, and probably still is, the prevailing opinion. The question is, however, whether this opinion is correct.\u201d \u201cWe have before us to-day so complete a history of the Bible in the various modern languages that it can no longer be said that the Vulgate alone was in use and that the laity consequently were ignorant of Scripture. It greatly redounds to the credit of Protestant theologians, that they, more than any others, took so large a part in collecting this enormous store of material.\u201d \u201cWe must admit that the Middle Ages possessed a quite surprising and extremely praiseworthy knowledge of the Bible, such as might in many respects put our own age to shame.\u201d \u201cWe have to acknowledge that the Bible at the present day no longer forms the foundation of our knowledge and civilisation to the same extent as it did in the Middle Ages.\u201d<\/p>\n

[Footnote: E. v. Dobschiitz, \u201d Deutsche Rundschau,\u201d 101, 1900, p. 61 ff. Falk, ib., p. 86.]<\/div>\n

Who, however, was responsible for the prevalent belief that the Middle Ages knew nothing of the Bible? Who was it who so repeatedly asserted this, that he misled the people into believing that nobody before him had studied Holy Scripture, and that it was only through him that the\u00a0\u201cWord of God had been drawn forth from under the bench\u201d<\/span>? A Protestant quite rightly reproves the \u201cbad habit\u201d of accepting the estimate of ecclesiastical conditions, particularly of divine worship, current \u201cwith Luther and in his circle\u201d -, 1 it is, however, to fall short of the mark, to describe merely as a \u201cbad habit\u201d Luther\u2019s flagrant and insulting falsehoods against the ecclesiastical conditions at the close of the Middle Ages, falsehoods for which his own polemical interests were solely responsible.<\/p>\n

. . . As some Protestants have sought to clear him of the authorship of so glaring a fable and to insinuate that the expression belongs rather to his pupil Mathesius, we must here look a little more closely into the words.<\/p>\n

Luther himself uses the saying, for instance, when claiming credit in his Commentary on the Prophet Zacharias (chap, viii.) with having rendered the greatest possible service to Scripture. He says:\u00a0\u201cThey [the Papists] are still angry and refuse to listen when people say, that, with them, Scripture lay under the bench, and that their mad delusions alone prevailed.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0In this connection the Weimar editor of the Commentary refers to a work of the former Dominican, Petrus Sylvius, aimed at Luther and entitled \u201cVon den vier Evangelein, so eine lange Zeit unter der Bank sein gelegen.\u201d<\/p>\n

[Footnote: \u201cWerke,\u201d Weim. ed., 23, p. 606 ; Erl. ed., 42, p. 280. Cp. N. Paulus, \u201cDie deutschen Dominikaner im Kampf gegen Luther,\u201d p. 61.]<\/div>\n

Popery, Luther says in another passage,\u00a0\u201ckicked Scripture under the bench.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

[Footnote: \u201cWerke,\u201d Erl. ed., 25, p. 444.]<\/div>\n

. . . Elsewhere he describes in detail the trouble he had in pulling the Bible from\u00a0\u201cunder the bench,\u201d<\/span>\u00a0particularly owing to his theological rivals and the sectarians within the camp; on this occasion his black outlook as to the future of the Bible he had thus set free scarcely redounds to the credit of his achievement. He says in his tract against Zwingli (\u201cThat the words of Christ, \u2018This is My Body,\u2019 still stand fast,\u201d 1527):\u00a0\u201cWhen in our own day we saw how Scripture lay under the bench, and how the devil was deluding us and taking us captive with the hay and straw of men-made prayers, we tried, by the Grace of God, to mend matters, and have indeed with great and bitter pains brought Scripture back to light once more, and, sending human ordinances to the winds, set ourselves free and escaped from the devil.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/div>\n
[Footnote: \u201d Werke,\u201d Weim. ed., 23, p. 69 ; Erl. ed., 30, p. 19. For similar predictions see above, p. 169 ff. On the famous \u201cbench\u201d cp. also Weim. ed., 6, p. 460 ; Erl. ed., 21, p. 348 ; also below, p. 541 and vol. iv., p. 159.]<\/div>\n

(pp. 536-539)<\/p>\n

It is plain that they\u00a0\u201cabuse and revile Scripture, thrust it under the bench, pretend that it is shrouded in thick fog, that the interpretation of the Fathers is needed and that light must be sought in the darkness.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0Thus did he write against Emser in 1521.<\/p>\n

[Footnote: \u201d Auff das ubirchristlich Buch,\u201d etc., 1521, \u201d Werke,\u201d Weim. ed., 7, p. 641 ; Erl. ed., 27, p. 247.]<\/div>\n

(p. 541)<\/p>\n

Modern Protestant writers in this field are also somewhat sceptical about the theory of Luther\u2019s complete ignorance of the older translation of the Bible, and the assertion that he made no use whatever of it. O. Reichert, for instance, in his new work \u201cLuthers deutsche Bibel\u201d makes the following remarks on Luther\u2019s work in the Wartburg, with which we may fittingly conclude this section: \u201cAlthough he probably was able to make use of Lang\u2019s translation of 1521 in his rendering of Matthew, and as a matter of fact did have recourse to it, and though he most likely also had the old German translation at his elbow, as is apparent from many coincidences, nevertheless, what Luther accomplished is an achievement worthy of all admiration.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n
[Footnote: \u201cLuthers deutsche Bibel,\u201d p. 23.]<\/div>\n

(p. 546)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Luther at times talks about \u201cobscurity\u201d of the Bible in the sense of false doctrines being imposed upon it (Catholic biographer Grisar acknowledges this), but this doesn\u2019t rule out that he also often intends the first sense of physical removal of the Bible from the laity (by either prohibition or absence of vernacular translations, or lack of availability of same): according to the timeworn Protestant myth that has been heard countless times ever since. That Luther intends the first sense is already observed in the excerpts I have provided above. For example:<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

. . . the Bible lies forgotten in the dust under the bench<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>(as happened to the book of Deuteronomy, in the time of the kings of Judah<\/span>).<\/span>\u00a0(1539<\/a>)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n


\n<\/span>
\nThe editors of this collection of Luther writings, gives the biblical reference alluded to by Luther: 2 Kings 22:8. Here it is (RSV):<\/span><\/p>\n

And Hilki\u2019ah the high priest said to Shaphan the secretary, \u201cI have found the\u00a0<\/b>book of the law in the house of the LORD.\u201d And Hilki\u2019ah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Most Bible scholars consider this lost work, the book of Deuteronomy. Note that it was literally, physically lost, in the temple. Once it was found, it was read to the people. This is not merely loss of proper\u00a0interpretation<\/i>, but loss of the\u00a0book itself<\/i>. Luther proves that this is his meaning by citing this analogy. It couldn\u2019t be any clearer than it is.<\/p>\n

Again above, Luther refers to a state of affairs where (Catholic) men\u00a0\u201cpermit the Word of God to fall into disuse . . .\u201d<\/span>\u00a0It\u2019s not used at all; this is again,\u00a0non-use<\/i>\u00a0of the Bible altogether, not false or corrupted use of it. If I permit my bicycle to fall into disuse, quite obviously I am not using it at all. The chain would get rusty in due course. Luther uses the same analogy in the same work: [the Bible]\u00a0\u201claid up in rust\u201d<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Luther\u2019s\u00a0Commentary on Peter and Jude<\/i>\u00a0from 1523 (cited at length above), explicitly states that Catholics (or the Church) supposedly desired to keep the Bible out of the laity\u2019s hands. As a general statement, this is untrue. And it\u2019s a bit difficult to believe that he could have been\u00a0this\u00a0<\/i>ignorant of Church history and Catholicism (being quite a sharp guy).<\/p>\n

But we know that Luther was prone to hyper-polemical utterances and exaggeration (and that context is always very important in interpretation of Luther); thus we hope (in charity) that this is altogether an instance of that, rather than reflective of his literal opinion as to the historical facts.<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Luther\u2019s Dubious Claims About the Supposed Utter Obscurity of the Bible Before His Translation In 1466, 17 years before Martin Luther was even born,\u00a0Johannes Mentelin\u00a0printed the Mentel Bible, a\u00a0High German\u00a0vernacular Bible, at\u00a0Strasbourg. It was reprinted at least 13 times up till 1518. The copy above dates from 1518 and was sold by The Philadelphia Rare […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":5417,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[31,131,23],"tags":[1841,539,1840,19816,536,1838],"class_list":["post-5414","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-bible-and-tradition","category-church-ecclesiology","category-martin-luther","tag-catholic-german-translations-of-the-bible","tag-german-bible","tag-luther-the-bible","tag-luthers-german-translation-of-the-bible","tag-sacred-scripture","tag-vernacular-translations"],"yoast_head":"\nWere Vernacular Bibles Unknown Before Luther?<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The big myth commonly heard legend among Protestants is supposed Catholic desire to keep the Bible in the vernacular out of the hands of the people.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/were-vernacular-bibles-unknown-before-luther.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Were Vernacular Bibles Unknown Before Luther?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The big myth commonly heard legend among Protestants is supposed Catholic desire to keep the Bible in the vernacular out of the hands of the people.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/were-vernacular-bibles-unknown-before-luther.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2016-01-08T14:45:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-04-11T16:03:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2016\/01\/BibleMentel.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"300\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"217\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/were-vernacular-bibles-unknown-before-luther.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/were-vernacular-bibles-unknown-before-luther.html\",\"name\":\"Were Vernacular Bibles Unknown Before Luther?\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2016-01-08T14:45:54+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-04-11T16:03:28+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\"},\"description\":\"The big myth commonly heard legend among Protestants is supposed Catholic desire to keep the Bible in the vernacular out of the hands of the people.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/were-vernacular-bibles-unknown-before-luther.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/were-vernacular-bibles-unknown-before-luther.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/were-vernacular-bibles-unknown-before-luther.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Were Vernacular Bibles Unknown Before Luther?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/\",\"name\":\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\",\"description\":\"Catholic biblical apologetics\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\",\"name\":\"Dave Armstrong\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Dave Armstrong\"},\"description\":\"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \\\"This Rock\\\" (now called \\\"Catholic Answers Magazine\\\"), \\\"Envoy Magazine\\\" (Patrick Madrid), \\\"The Catholic Answer,\\\" \\\"The Coming Home Journal,\\\" \\\"Gilbert Magazine\\\" (American Chesterton Society), and \\\"The Latin Mass.\\\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \\\"The Michigan Catholic\\\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \\\"Catholic Answers Live\\\" (twice), \\\"Faith and Family Live\\\" (Steve Wood), \\\"Kresta in the Afternoon,\\\" \\\"Son Rise Morning Show,\\\" \\\"Catholic Connection\\\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \\\"The Catholics Next Door.\\\" His large and popular website, \\\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\\\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \\\"index\\\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \\\"Surprised by Truth\\\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \\\"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\\\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \\\"The Catholic Verses\\\" (2004), \\\"The One-Minute Apologist\\\" (2007), \\\"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\\\" (2009), \\\"The Quotable Newman\\\" (editor: 2012), and \\\"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\\\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \\\"The New Catholic Answer Bible\\\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \\\"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\\\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \\\"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\\\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \\\"Quotable Wesley\\\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Were Vernacular Bibles Unknown Before Luther?","description":"The big myth commonly heard legend among Protestants is supposed Catholic desire to keep the Bible in the vernacular out of the hands of the people.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/were-vernacular-bibles-unknown-before-luther.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Were Vernacular Bibles Unknown Before Luther?","og_description":"The big myth commonly heard legend among Protestants is supposed Catholic desire to keep the Bible in the vernacular out of the hands of the people.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/were-vernacular-bibles-unknown-before-luther.html","og_site_name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","article_published_time":"2016-01-08T14:45:54+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-04-11T16:03:28+00:00","og_image":[{"width":300,"height":217,"url":"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2016\/01\/BibleMentel.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Dave Armstrong","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Dave Armstrong","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/were-vernacular-bibles-unknown-before-luther.html","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/were-vernacular-bibles-unknown-before-luther.html","name":"Were Vernacular Bibles Unknown Before Luther?","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website"},"datePublished":"2016-01-08T14:45:54+00:00","dateModified":"2025-04-11T16:03:28+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e"},"description":"The big myth commonly heard legend among Protestants is supposed Catholic desire to keep the Bible in the vernacular out of the hands of the people.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/were-vernacular-bibles-unknown-before-luther.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/were-vernacular-bibles-unknown-before-luther.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2016\/01\/were-vernacular-bibles-unknown-before-luther.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Were Vernacular Bibles Unknown Before Luther?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/","name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","description":"Catholic biblical apologetics","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e","name":"Dave Armstrong","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Dave Armstrong"},"description":"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \"This Rock\" (now called \"Catholic Answers Magazine\"), \"Envoy Magazine\" (Patrick Madrid), \"The Catholic Answer,\" \"The Coming Home Journal,\" \"Gilbert Magazine\" (American Chesterton Society), and \"The Latin Mass.\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \"The Michigan Catholic\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \"Envoy Magazine.\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \"Catholic Answers Live\" (twice), \"Faith and Family Live\" (Steve Wood), \"Kresta in the Afternoon,\" \"Son Rise Morning Show,\" \"Catholic Connection\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \"The Catholics Next Door.\" His large and popular website, \"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \"Envoy Magazine.\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \"index\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \"Surprised by Truth\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \"The Catholic Verses\" (2004), \"The One-Minute Apologist\" (2007), \"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\" (2009), \"The Quotable Newman\" (editor: 2012), and \"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \"The New Catholic Answer Bible\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \"Quotable Wesley\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).","sameAs":["https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics"],"url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5414","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2331"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5414"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5414\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5417"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5414"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5414"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5414"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}