Sacred Languages besides Latin

  • Thread starter Thread starter Spyridon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m just a little bias towards Greek since I myself can read Koine Greek, choosing to study it over Latin, despite being a Latin Christian, simply because I wanted to read the New Testament in its original language. 😛 This is all just my opinion of course. My hold on Latin isn’t great, I only know the basics of it, whereas I’ve taken a lot of time in my studies of Koine Greek.
 
Last edited:
Not meaning to be a wet blanket, but I would submit that no languages are sacred, in that the message, not the syntax or linguistics is Holy. Therefore, the Truth of God’s word, whether in “dead” languages, or English, German, French, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, or even American Sign, et.al. is Holy without regards to how it is communicated.
 
Latin, Greek and Hebrew are the sacred languages, because the inscription above Our Lord’s head on the cross was written in those three languages.
 
Last edited:
I’m just full of spelling mistakes today!

ELatin might be what’s “in” with the youths these days though.
 
Last edited:
Spyridon said:
In your opinion, are other Sacred Languages in the Judeo-Christian tradition on a level with Ecclesial Latin?

IMO, Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Aramaic, Biblical/Koine Greek, Ecclesial Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Ge’ez, Classical Armenian, Old Georgian, and Church Slavonic are all equally Sacred Languages by virtue of the fact that the Bible was originally written in them (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek) and/or by the fact that the Bible was translated into them at an very early date (Latin, Syriac, Coptic) or by the fact that they’ve been sanctified by widespread, long term liturgical use (like Church Slavonic and Classical Armenian).
Click to expand...
That’s pretty much it.

You will no doubt get the Latin-supremacists, but ancient Christian traditions have always cherished such languages as Aramaic, Greek, Old Church Slavonic, and Ge’ez among others. They are on par with Latin in the grand Christian scheme. Those to exalt Latin to the exclusion of these others exhibit a narrow Western-centric view. A common problem among Latin Catholics today.
 
The Word of God became man and spoke in human words, thus sanctifying all language, just like his taking on flesh sanctifies all flesh, and his baptism in the Jordan sanctifies all waters. Perhaps this is why the Scriptures are so replete with admonitions to guard one’s tongue…
 
Great question, Spyridon 🙂

I would argue it depends on context. Considering the entirety of the Catholic Church, I would consider all the languages you listed sacred by virtue of their being a vehicle for transmission of Christianity through the world and their being set apart for the purpose of liturgical worship. Well, perhaps Latin should have some “place of pride” among all Catholics, since it is the language of Rome, but whatever 🙂 However, within, say, the Latin Church, no language is as important and as sanctified as Latin, since it is the language of worship and, equally importantly, of ecclesiastical unity of all Roman Rite Catholics around the globe. Similarly, among the Slavic Eastern Catholics, this role is played by Church Slavonic (even though, being an amateur Slavicist, I know that the various national dialects, or recensions, are not really easily mutually intelligible) etc.
 
Sigh. Well, we “Latin supremacists” may tend to exalt Latin primarily for two reasons:
  1. We are Roman Rite Catholics. Members of the Western Church. Thus, when it comes to our Church, we are entirely entitled to a “narrow, Western-centric view” because we are the Western Church. It is our patrimony, our culture, our liturgy etc., while Greek, Church Slavonic and other languages are in a sense, to the Latin Catholic, their patrimony, culture, liturgy and so on. They of course deserve every ounce of respect and care, being the shared heritage of the whole Catholic Church, but to the Latin, they’re simply not that dear and important.
  2. The Roman Rite is the single one not given due care in the last century. While praise was heaped on the Eastern rites and the importance of preserving them was repeatedly underlined, the Roman Rite was changed, occasionally mangled beyond all recognition, its artistic expressions forgotten and often replaced with banal trendyisms and, bafflingly, its language made a point of contempt among many of its adherents. Unlike within any other rite, simply expressing appreciation for the ancient history of your own rite paints you, in the eyes of some, as an enemy, an opponent to Vatican II or some other stupid label. The Roman Rite, even though by far the largest Catholic rite, is the one on the fastest slide to obscurity.
Regarding the first point, I say that not as a Westerner, but as a Slav living in Eastern/Central Europe whose very language and national culture has been influenced by Eastern Christianity. I understand Greek and, purely from the linguistic point of view, like it better than Latin. Same with Church Slavonic. But being a Roman, I just don’t care that much for neither Greek nor CS. Being attached exclusively to Latin is certainly not a problem for a Latin Catholic.
 
Last edited:
No. The middle greek language was widely used in eastern rome and later the byzantine empire. Contracts were sometimes bilingual in latin/greek, but liturgy and daily life were greek.
 
I read once, years ago, that there are 4 sacred languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin. Those were the 4 languages spoken by Christ. Always made sense to me.
 
John 19
There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, and Jesus between them. 19 Pilate also wrote a title and put it on the cross; it read, “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.” 20 Many of the Jews read this title, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, and in Greek.

What makes a language Sacred? I think these three languages have a certain Sacredness because of they transferred the Gospel initially.

But all languages eventually tranfer the Gospel.
 
They do but using different nuances. Even all the English Bibles differ in that respect. But different strokes for different folks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top