Did Lay People have Access to the Bible in the Middle Ages?
By Dylan Schrader
The Availability of Books
Until the invention of the printing press, that is, throughout most of the Middle Ages, books had to be copied by hand. For a text as long as the Bible, this process was expensive enough that most people could were not even close to being able to afford a book. Because books were therefore scarce, the Bible was the most widely copied. As such, it became the primary literary material for people of those days. There were even Bibles which were chained down in churches to facilitate reading by those who could not afford their own copy.1
Although the Bible was particularly well known by priests, who were required to learn large parts of it, and by monks who were engaged in the endeavor of copying manuscripts, lay people, too, were very familiar with the content of the Scriptures. This much is evidenced by the numerous references to Scripture which appear even in secular documents.
From The Dark Ages by Samuel Roffey Maitland, Chapter 27:
The writings of the dark ages are, if I may use the expression, made of the Scriptures. I do not merely mean that the writers constantly quoted the Scriptures, and appealed to them as authorities on all occasions, as other writers have done since their day; but I mean that they thought and spoke and wrote the thoughts and words and phrases of the Bible, and that they did this constantly and habitually as the natural mode of expressing themselves. They did it, too, not exclusively in theological or ecclesiastical matters, but in histories, biographies, familiar letters, legal instruments, and documents of every description.
Illiteracy
But what about the majority of people at that time who could not read? They were surrounded by the Bible in the form of sacred dramas (such as Passion plays), stained glass windows, frescoes, sermons, etc.2 The Mass itself contains readings from the Bible and its prayers are primarily composed of Scripture as well.
The Bible in Latin and the Vulgate
It is true that during the Middle Ages printed copies of the Bible were primarily in Latin. This is for the simple reason that Latin had become the language of reading and writing. As such, anyone who was literate at that time was able to read and write in Latin.3
From Turning Points of English Church History by Edward L. Cutts:
Another common error is that the clergy were unwilling that the laity should read the Bible for themselves, and carefully kept it in an unknown tongue, that the people might not be able to read it. The truth is that most people who could read at all could read Latin, and would certainly prefer to read the authorized Vulgate to any vernacular version.
Indeed, Latin was more common a language in Europe during the Middle Ages than is usually thought. If the Church had wanted to keep the Scriptures a secret, she had only to copy them only in the Hebrew and Greek texts rather than to encourage the use of the Vulgate.
From Literary World (October, 1894) by Peter Bayne:
Latin was then the language of all men of culture, and, to an extent probably far beyond what we at present realize, the common language of Europe; in those days tens of thousands of lads, many of them poor, studied at the Universities, and learned to talk Latin.
There were various Latin editions of the Bible available. The Church wished to standardize Bible usage and thus declared the Vulgate to be the standard for public use.
From Council of Trent Session IV, Decree Concerning the Edition and Use of the Sacred Books:
Moreover, the same holy council considering that not a little advantage will accrue to the Church of God if it be made known which of all the Latin editions of the sacred books now in circulation is to be regarded as authentic, ordains and declares that the old Latin Vulgate Edition, which, in use for so many hundred years, has been approved by the Church, be in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions held as authentic, and that no one dare or presume under any pretext whatsoever to reject it.
Did the Council of Trent hold the Vulgate as more authoritative than the autographs or other original-language copies of the Bible? Does the Catholic Church hold this now? Of course she does not. The Council of Trent wished to establish a standard version of the Bible for public use in the Latin Rite, it never presumed that the Vulgate was inspired or even free from errors of translation.
From Divino Afflante Spiritu, 21:
And if the Tridentine Synod wished "that all should use as authentic" the Vulgate Latin version, this, as all know, applies only to the Latin Church and to the public use of the same Scriptures; nor does it, doubtless, in any way diminish the authority and value of the original texts. For there was no question then of these texts, but of the Latin versions, which were in circulation at that time, and of these the same Council rightly declared to be preferable that which "had been approved by its long-continued use for so many centuries in the Church." Hence this special authority or as they say, authenticity of the Vulgate was not affirmed by the Council particularly for critical reasons, but rather because of its legitimate use in the Churches throughout so many centuries; by which use indeed the same is shown, in the sense in which the Church has understood and understands it, to be free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals; so that, as the Church herself testifies and affirms, it may be quoted safely and without fear of error in disputations, in lectures and in preaching; and so its authenticity is not specified primarily as critical, but rather as juridical.
The translators of the King James Version of the Bible were particularly grateful to St. Jerome for producing the Vulgate.
From the Preface of the King James Version of the Bible:
There were also within a few hundreth yeeres after CHRIST, translations many into the Latine tongue: for this tongue also was very fit to convey the Law and the Gospel by, because in those times very many Countreys of the West, yea of the South, East and North, spake or understood Latine, being made Provinces to the Romanes. But now the Latine Translations were too many to be all good, for they were infinite (Latini Interpretes nullo modo numerari possunt, saith S. Augustine.) Againe they were not out of the Hebrew fountaine (wee speake of the Latine Translations of the Old Testament) but out of the Greeke streame, therefore the Greeke being not altogether cleare, the Latine derived from it must needs be muddie. This moved S. Jerome a most learned father, and the best linguist without controversie, of his age, or of any that went before him, to undertake the translating of the Old Testament, out of the very fountaines themselves; which hee performed with that evidence of great learning, judgement, industrie and faithfulnes, that he hath for ever bound the Church unto him, in a debt of speciall remembrance and thankefulnesse.
Vernacular Bibles
When the Bible was composed, of course, it was written in the languages spoken at the time: Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old Testament and Greek for the New Testament. Over time these languages became less common and it was the Catholic Church who first produced vernacular translations of the Bible. The early Latin Bibles and the aptly-named "Vulgate" itself are prime examples of this.
In later times, too, despite the prevalance of the Latin language among those who could read in Europe, Catholic missionaries made use of Bibles in the native languages of the peoples whom they evangelized. There were "popular translations of the Bible and Gospels in Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemiand and Hungarian" even before the invention of the printing press.4
In the English language, there were Bibles in early and middle-English long before the days of Wycliff. There are remnants of texts, indicating much larger works, such as the paraphrase of Orm (ca. 1150), the Salus Animae (1250), and the translations of William Shoreham and Richard Rolle.5 St. Thomas More himself, in the time of Henry VIII, wrote: "The whole Bible long before Wycliff's day was by virtuous and well-learned men translated into the English tongue, and by good and godly people with devotion and soberness well and reverently read."6
The translators of the King James Version of the Bible were well aware the existence of many vernacular versions of the Bible--even in English--before the days of Wycliff. In the Preface of their translation, in fact, they lay out a lengthy list of examples to prove the existence of diverse vernacular translations, being well aware that up until their own time translations of the Bible were produced only by Catholics for Catholics or for missionary work to convert others to the Catholic faith.
From the Preface of the King James Version of the Bible:
The godly-learned were not content to have the Scriptures in the Language which themselves understood, Greeke and Latine, (as the good Lepers were not content to fare well themselves, but acquainted their neighbours with the store that God had sent, that they also might provide for themselves) but also for the behoofe and edifying of the unlearned which hungred and thirsted after Righteousnesse, and had soules to be saved as well as they, they provided Translations into the vulgar for their Countreymen, insomuch that most nations under heaven did shortly after their conversion, heare CHRIST speaking unto them in their mother tongue, not by the voyce of their Minister onely, but also by the written word translated.
[...]
Much about that time, even in our King Richard the seconds dayes, John Trevisa translated them into English, and many English Bibles in written hand are yet to be seene with divers, translated as it is very probable, in that age.
Restrictions on Publishers
The Church did place restrictions on publishers of the Bible in the Middle Ages. After all, she wanted to ensure that accurate and integral copies and translations of the Scriptures were made. Thus, the Church begain to require--especially after Wycliff and the Protestant Reformation introduced erroneous editions of the Bible--that publishers of the Sacred Books seek ecclesiastical approval.
From Council of Trent Session IV, Decree Concerning the Edition and Use of the Sacred Books:
And wishing, as is proper, to impose a restraint in this matter on printers also, who, now without restraint, thinking what pleases them is permitted them, print without the permission of ecclesiastical superiors the books of the Holy Scriptures and the notes and commentaries thereon of all persons indiscriminately, often with the name of the press omitted, often also under a fictitious press-name, and what is worse, without the name of the author, and also indiscreetly have for sale such books printed elsewhere, [this council] decrees and ordains that in the future the Holy Scriptures, especially the old Vulgate Edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible, and that it shall not be lawful for anyone to print or to have printed any books whatsoever dealing with sacred doctrinal mattes without the name of the author, or in the future to sell them, or even to have them in possession, unless they have first been examined and approved by the ordinary, under penalty of anathema and fine prescribed by the last Council of the Lateran.[7]
If they be regulars they must in addition to this examination and approval obtain permission also from their own superiors after these have examined the books in accordance with their own statutes.
Those who lend or circulate them in manuscript before they have been examined and approved, shall be subject to the same penalties as the printers, and those who have them in their possession or read them, shall, unless they make known the authors, be themselves regarded as the authors.
The approbation of such books, however, shall be given in writing and shall appear authentically at the beginning of the book, whether it be written or printed, and all this, that is, both the examination and the approbation, shall be done gratuitously, so that what ought to be approved may be approved and what ought to be condemned may be condemned.
Furthermore, wishing to repress that boldness whereby the words and sentences of the Holy Scriptures are turned and twisted to all kinds of profane usages, namely, to things scurrilous, fabulous, vain, to flatteries, detractions, superstitions, godless and diabolical incantations, divinations, the casting of lots and defamatory libels, to put an end to such irreverence and contempt, and that no one may in the future dare use in any manner the words of Holy Scripture for these and similar purposes, it is commanded and enjoined that all people of this kind be restrained by the bishops as violators and profaners of the word of God, with the penalties of the law and other penalties that they may deem fit to impose.
The Church continues to require that publishers seek ecclesiastical approval before publishing editions of the Bible in order to safeguard the integrity of the Sacred Scriptures. As in the Middle Ages when she took great pains to preserve the text of the Bible which had to be copied by hand for centuries before it could be reproduced more easily, so today does the Catholic Church actively work to preserve the Bible against the efforts of those who would introduce errors or remove parts of the inspired text.
From The Code of Canon Law, 1983 edition, Canon 825:
Can. 825 § 1. Books of the Sacred Scriptures cannot be published unless they have been approved either by the Apostolic See or by the conference of bishops; for their vernacular translations to be published it is required that they likewise be approved by the same authority and also annotated with necessary and sufficient explanations.
§ 2. With the permission of the conference of bishops Catholic members of the Christian faithful can collaborate with separated brothers and sisters in preparing and publishing translations of the Sacred Scriptures annotated with appropriate explanations.
Interpretation of the Bible
The real question is not one of whether the Bible was available to people during the Middle Ages--it clearly was. The problem is the Protestant notion that each individual ought to interpret the Bible for himself, relying on no other authority. The Catholic Church has never accepted and cannot accept such a position because it contradicts the will of Christ and even the testimony of Scripture itself.
From 2 Peter 1:16-21:
For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased," we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
The concern which the Catholic Church had and has for souls led her to restate with boldness that the authentic interpretation of Scripture does not belong to individuals but to the Church herself. It was the Protestant innovation that each man could be his own authority in interpreting the Scriptures as "sole rule of faith" to which the Catholic Church reacted in the Late Middle Ages.
From Council of Trent Session IV, Decree Concerning the Edition and Use of the Sacred Books:
Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions,[5] presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation,[6] has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, even though such interpretations should never at any time be published.
Those who act contrary to this shall be made known by the ordinaries and punished in accordance with the penalties prescribed by the law.
From Providentissimus Deus, 15:
But he must not on that account consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push inquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine-not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires;(40) a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate. Neither should those passages be neglected which the Fathers have understood in an allegorical or figurative sense, more especially when such interpretation is justified by the literal, and when it rests on the authority of many. For this method of interpretation has been received by the Church from the Apostles, and has been approved by her own practice, as the holy Liturgy attests; although it is true that the holy Fathers did not thereby pretend directly to demonstrate dogmas of faith, but used it as a means of promoting virtue and piety, such as, by their own experience, they knew to be most valuable. The authority of other Catholic interpreters is not so great; but the study of Scripture has always continued to advance in the Church, and, therefore, these commentaries also have their own honourable place, and are serviceable in many ways for the refutation of assailants and the explanation of difficulties. But it is most unbecoming to pass by, in ignorance or contempt, the excellent work which Catholics have left in abundance, and to have recourse to the works of non-Catholics - and to seek in them, to the detriment of sound doctrine and often to the peril of faith, the explanation of passages on which Catholics long ago have successfully employed their talent and their labour. For although the studies of non-Catholics, used with prudence, may sometimes be of use to the Catholic student, he should, nevertheless, bear well in mind-as the Fathers also teach in numerous passages(41) - that the sense of Holy Scripture can nowhere be found incorrupt outside of the Church, and cannot be expected to be found in writers who, being without the true faith, only gnaw the bark of the Sacred Scripture, and never attain its pith.
From Vatican I Session III, Chapter II:
8. Now since the decree on the interpretation of Holy Scripture, profitably made by the Council of Trent, with the intention of constraining rash speculation, has been wrongly interpreted by some, we renew that decree and declare its meaning to be as follows: that in matters of faith and morals, belonging as they do to the establishing of Christian doctrine, that meaning of Holy Scripture must be held to be the true one, which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of Holy Scripture.
9. In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret Holy Scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers.
Exhortation to Read the Bible
From The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 132-133:
"Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture."111
The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful. . . to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.112
From ancient times, the Catholic Church, has endeavored to make the Scriptures known to her people in her liturgies, in her sacred music, in sacred art, and by providing accurate and integral editions of the Bible. To this day she encourages Bible reading by granting a plenary indulgence to the faithful who read the Bible faithfully for one half hour.7
Footnotes
1. Graham, Henry G. Where we Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church. (Rockford, IL: Tan, 2004) 89.
2. Graham 88-89.
3. Graham 93-94.
4. Graham 101.
5. Graham 104.
6. St. Thomas More. Dialogues, III.
7. Enchiridion Indulgentiarum, Fourth Edition, 7.