(A group of them at once this time. Keep in mind, this is all in response to a story about how a software program is allegedly helping scholars identify the different authors of stories out of which some early Old Testament books were woven together, as described in the so-called "Documentary hypotheis.")
CITIZEN 1: So, some portions of the Bible have multiple authors, each with their own idealogic bent, and their own agendas. Using that premise, it's easy to see how the original text was subverted during translation in the 13th century, to suit the agenda of the RCC. Control over the masses, deliberate manipulation of scripture.
ME: What translation would that be? My impression was that in the 13 century the Catholic Church was committed to using the Vulgate, which is mostly the work of Jerome in the late 4th century, and was very suspicious, to put it very mildly, of any new translations.
But please, enlighten me.
CITIZEN 2: please enlighten you, Why,cant you read with comprehension !!
ME: I can read just fine, thanks. But I don't know of any
"translation [of the Bible] in the 13th century, to suit the agenda of the RCC"
CITIZEN 3: In short, keeping the Bible and the liturgy in Vulgate Latin (essentially a dead language) meant that the church held the keys to the kingdom. Controlling access to seminaries meant controlling the worshippers, since they couldn't function on their own.
Twomen changed everything: Martin Luther and Johannes Gutenberg. Of these, the latter was more important, developing a new technology that increased independent thought by increasing literacy.
ME: "Martin Luther"
"and Johannes Gutenberg"
15th century. And both decidedly NOT conforming to the Catholic Church's agenda.
CITIZEN 3: Okay; people started getting serious about putting the Bible in "the language of the people" in the 13th century, but still it was a scholar's pursuit at a time when books were high-priced rarities. I Googled and found a bunch of different sites; here's one:
CITIZEN 1: Thanks for the backup.
What I was referencing was the introduction of the translations done by the monks, prior to the invention of the printing press. Very few people were literate at that point in history, those who were existed mostly in the clergy. Very easy targets for manipulation by their superiors. You know, the guys in the pointy hats.
ME: Okay, so apparently you can't get any more specific than you already were.
Can you tell me who told you about these manipulative translations? Was it Jesus?
And yes, I read ShinjiIkari's link.
Are you just assuming that any translation made in the 13th century was ordered by Popes or bishops with manipulative intent? May I hope that you could provide one specific example of a translation and tell me how this intent was manifested in it? (Definitely getting to be pretty much an entirely rhetorical question by now. I'm feeling like Gibbs in the beginning of Gaddis' JR, with his look drained of all hope.)
CITIZEN 1: I really didn't have anyone tell me of these manipulations. My assertions come from first hand experience. Don't worry, I'm on your side in this discussion. (At this point it's very hard to resist the temptation to say something like "You couldn't find my side with a search warrant and a crack FBI forensic team!") It's these experiences that force me to gladly proclaim I'm agnostic.
Some of the translations were, in fact, ordered by whoever was ruling at that time. Kings and queens did have some education, and the more enlightened ones sought more. As far as offering a specific example, I'm sorry no. But then again, I don't have the originals in my possesion, nor the skills to translate. (Duh! This is getting very sad now. I guess I'll just leave these people alone. What else can I do?)