Why Latin?

[mercygate]

If Latin is the language of the church, did Jesus speak Latin?

Why can Bibles be translated?

If mass can’t be translated because Latin is special then why was the Bible translated from Latin into English, etc?

Should the Bible have been translated into Latin from Greek?

Why isn’t Greek or Aramaic the language of the Church when it’s more likely Jesus spoke those languages? Why not Hebrew, the language of the Jews? Why Latin?

Latin became the language of the Church around the 4th Century when it was the language of the world. In Europe, throughout the middle ages, all scholarship was in Latin. Anybody who was taught to read, was taught in Latin. It was a language that all literate people (and there weren’t all that many) understood. The Church is, always has been, an international operation. So the best way for Celts, Gaels, Helvetians, Francs etc. to communicate was in their common language. Kind of like the last Russian Tsar and his wife spoke English together because he was Russian and she was a Dane, and their common language was their grandmother’s – English.

One reasaon Aramaic is not the common language of the Church is that our New Testament was written in Greek – which was the “Latin” of the world at that time. Even the early Aramaic versions of the New Testament are later than the Greek.

Jesus, doubtless, DID speak Latin, although not as his ordinary language. He also spoke Hebrew and some Greek. After all, he was a small business man and would have interacted with clients from several layers of the culture. And besides, as the Son of God, he could do stuff like that.

We translate the Bible into the vernacular in order that people who cannot read the original languages may have access to the scriptures at least at some level.

Christians do, indeed, study the Scriptures in their original languages. Just because we have translations, it is not to be assumed that we ignore the original languages. My Hebrew is, um, “rusty” – to say the least. But I can handle Greek fairly well, and frequently resort to the Greek text when pondering a passage of Scripture.

 

[inJESUS]

Maronite?

yepp

 

[mercygate]

yepp

SERIOUSLY **COOL! **
On a visit to L.A., the nearest church to our hotel was Our Lady of Mount Lebanon. Went to daily Mass there for a week. Man! WHAT a splendid Tradition ya got goin’ there.

For the OP: This is one of the Catholic Churches that does not, and never DID worship in Latin. The Maronite consecration prayer is in Ancient Syriac – a kind of Aramaic. And even with much of the liturgy now in English, they STILL stick to that beautiful consecration prayer.

I was especially moved by how the people start singing to the light when the candles are lit before Mass . . . The locals proudly showed us around the church and pointed out a stained glass window in honor of St. Jude, given by their most famous parishoner: Danny Thomas (anybody here old enough to remember him? – he founded St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital).

I could go Maronite in heartbeat!

 

[ibkc]

If Latin is the language of the church, did Jesus speak Latin?

Why can Bibles be translated?

Because we are a religion for everyone, not just an elite.

If mass can’t be translated because Latin is special then why was the Bible translated from Latin into English, etc?

Who said mass can’t be translated? Obviously it can: the current liturgy is usually said in the vernacular, although the whole thing can be said in Latin and many churches use at least a little Latin in their liturgies.

Should the Bible have been translated into Latin from Greek?

And Hebrew and Aramaic? Yes, because it allowed for the Word to be spread to a wider audience.

Why isn’t Greek or Aramaic the language of the Church when it’s more likely Jesus spoke those languages? Why not Hebrew, the language of the Jews? Why Latin?

Because Christians are not Jews, so there is no reason to use the Jewish liturgical language, and because the Church was based in Rome, where the vernacular was Latin. Putting it into Hebrew or Aramaic would have made no sense whatsoever.

 

[HashemEchad]

Why not Hebrew, the language of the Jews? Why Latin?

Some of the first Nazarenes (Christians) were of Jewish ancestry, but as the vast majority of Jews rejected Jesus’ claim to messiahship, Paul realized he’d have to take the new religion to the Gentiles for it to survive.

Hence, he took it to the nonJews, and as the new Christian religion became more and more Gentile, they moved away from their Jewish roots.

Personally, I am very glad it moved away from anything Jewish. We as Jews see what Christian theology has done to our Scriptures (the “OT”), so I can only imagine what would have happened if they’d kept our sacred language too, for use in their services!

Traditional Orthodox Judaism regards the Hebrew language itself as a very holy tongue (the lashon ha’kodesh), and the most religious Jews refuse to use the language except in prayer and Torah study (which I agree with as well.) We believe that God created the world by means of the letters of the Hebrew tongue.

So it would have broken our hearts if the Christian religion had taken our holy language as well as our holy Scriptures, and used them in a fashion they were never intended for.

 

[mercygate]

We as Jews see what Christian theology has done to our Scriptures (the “OT”), so I can only imagine what would have happened if they’d kept our sacred language too, for use in their services!

I am puzzled by this. What on earth did Christians “do” to your Scriptures?

– or are you referring to how Christians interpret them?

If that is the case, then I would plead guilty. Judaism as we know it today could not possibly read the Hebrew Scriptures as we do. They couldn’t do it in the first Century either. Those are the ones who did not convert.

 

[HashemEchad]

I am puzzled by this. What on earth did Christians “do” to your Scriptures?

– or are you referring to how Christians interpret them?

If that is the case, then I would plead guilty. Judaism as we know it today could not possibly read the Hebrew Scriptures as we do. They couldn’t do it in the first Century either. Those are the ones who did not convert.

I’m referring to the taking of our Scriptures and the application of new, different, nonJewish (and sometimes blasphemous in our definition) meanings to them.

Think for a moment how normative Christians feel when groups such as the JWs or Moonies take the NT and apply new, different (and sometimes blasphemous in your definition) meanings to them. Well, that is how we have felt for 2000 years.

 

[mercygate]

I’m referring to the taking of our Scriptures and the application of new, different, nonJewish (and sometimes blasphemous in our definition) meanings to them.

Think for a moment how normative Christians feel when groups such as the JWs or Moonies take the NT and apply new, different (and sometimes blasphemous in your definition) meanings to them. Well, that is how we have felt for 2000 years.

Yes. Then I DO understand what you are saying. I don’t think most Christians appreciate the shift of vision that the Resurrection brought about.

The whole view of WHAT the fulfilled prophesies WERE had to be revisited.

I give credit to Pharisaic Judaism of the Exile for coming up with a form of Judaism that could exist without the blood sacrifices of the Temple. That paved the way for an understanding of Priesthood that transcended the earthly temple and thus of a priestly Messiah that transcended “this world.”

Nevertheless, that whole idea is largely foreign to Judaism, which was (and somewhat still is) a place-and-people-rooted proposition.

 

[Spirithound]

Why would a mass be in Latin, to a population that doesn’t speak Latin?

Why would th Qu’ran be in Arabic, to a population that doesn’t speak Arabic?

 

[AgnosTheist]

This is the perfect example of the ignorance of agnos.

The Latin language was the language of the western world for hundreds if not thousands of years, almost every western language is derived from it and most words have their roots in it.

Reason is not sufficient as you have once again proven, because your idea of reason is insufficient.

so?

does that mean an American who understands english would also understand latin?

does that mean a filipino who understands english would also understand latin?

does that mean a korean who understands english would also understand latin?

you lack common sense, my friend.

 

[AgnosTheist]

shrug And your point is?

just pointing out the fact that English is the universal language, NOT LATIN.

 

[VociMike]

Why would a mass be in Latin, to a population that doesn’t speak Latin?

A few reasons I can think of.

1. It becomes unifying rather than dividing. Whatever language you speak, you can attend Mass and understand it (perhaps with the aid of a missal, which is very common). Parishes now are often language-divided - the English Mass, the Spanish Mass, the Creole Mass, the Vietnamese Mass, etc.
2. The Latin language is frozen, it is not changing in meaning. Living languages are constantly changing. Imagine today having a prayer that spoke of being gay in God’s presence.
3. Liturgies and prayers must be translated from the “official” language, and that places people at the mercy of translation committees which, experience has proven, often have their own agendas.
4. Combining (2) and (3), translations must be updated every generation or two. Subtle differences in the words must be learned. The liturgy is always fluid, never stable.
5. Every language group must now come up with an entire set of liturgical music in their language. Further, this music must be revised for each new translation. This is a formula for mediocrity and crank-it-out music. The result is music of very low average quality and staying power. Compare that to the 1500 year tradition of Catholic music in Latin, recognized the world over as a treasure of human artistry. By contrast, what contemporary English-language sacred music is likely to be valued and sung 500 or 1000 years from now? Thus, not only is unity with other language groups damaged, but unity with the faithful who have gone before us is also damaged. Each language group becomes isolated both in space and in time.

 

[O.S.Luke]

just pointing out the fact that English is the universal language, NOT LATIN.

I rarely agree with Agnos… but on this point he is correct. English is now the language of science; all scientific symposia and colloquia are held in English - it has become the Latin of the 21st century. While we might lament over that, it is a reality.

Latin’s fall began in Sir Isaac Newton’s time; in fact, his 1704 work Optiks was in English, not Latin as had been his other scholarly works. We can probably blame the printing press; the average person didn’t know Latin without benefit of higher education, and when books became cheap to own, printers (and authors) realized that vernacular language books were going to sell much better than books written in Latin.

Today, the largest problem is that a great many of the clergy simply don’t know Latin… not even bishops and cardinals. I remember this news article from Britain a few years ago:

By Martin Penner, The Times – October 24, 2005

Cardinals call on Pope to save Latin from last rites

Church needs lessons to revive its international language

O TEMPORA, o mores! The rolling thunder that is the Latin language is in such trouble, even in its last redoubt, the heirarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, that cardinals and bishops have begged Pope Benedict XVI to put it on a life support machine.

The Princes of the Church appear to have the same problem that bedevilled generations of baffled English schoolboys battling their way across the three divided parts of Gaul with Julius Caesar — they don’t speak it, read it or understand it. And while the grandly dressed and highly respected congregation at the Vatican’s Synod of Bishops may not have to write out 100 times Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres as a punishment for their ignorance, they appear now to be at least as embarrassed as any ink-stained duffer who confuses the vocative with the nominative.

When Cardinal Angelo Scola, the Patriarch of Venice, opened the synod, he gave his address entirely in Latin, sending many of the 241 participants rushing for headsets to hear a translation. Nothing could have better illustrated the Church’s fading proficiency in its own language.

To help bishops to follow the written text in front of them, Scola gave his audience useful pointers, such as, “paginam decimam quartam”. For many, this was of little help. It was clear that some kind of extra tuition was needed. So yesterday, after the three-week gathering had helped to demonstrate how serious was the need for a simple means of communication across the language barriers amidst the Church’s international flock, the synod called on the Pope to help to stop Latin falling entirely into disuse.

One of the synod’s 50 “propositions” to the Pope is that the language should feature prominently in Masses at major international events, where Catholics speaking many different languages are present.

It is expected to appeal to the Pope, who in June invited Catholics to pray in Latin whenever possible, emphasising its universal dimension. “Latin makes it easier for Christians from different countries to pray together, especially when they meet for special occasions,” he said .

Although ever fewer people outside the Vatican understand Latin, the language is used for papal encyclicals and other important Church documents.

There are few, even in the Church, who can speak it fluently. The tradition at Vatican synods of having at least one discussion group work in Latin was abandoned this year.

According to reports, only one synod participant spoke Latin every time he took the microphone: Latvian Cardinal Janis Pujats, the Archbishop of Riga. He did the same at the previous synod in 2001, when a disconsolate Pope John Paul II commented: “Paupera lingua latina, ultimum refugium habet in Riga” (Poor Latin, it has its last refuge in Riga).

The next time a Pope makes a joke in Latin, perhaps more of his cardinals and bishops will understand him.

There are always some advantages to knowing a dead language. After all, merda taurorum animas conturbit.

Pax vobiscum,

O+

 

[mercygate]

There are always some advantages to knowing a dead language. After all, merda taurorum animas conturbit.

Pax vobiscum,

O+

That’s disgusting and beneath you. The question was very well answered in its historical context well up-thread. I’m disappointed that you would take such a cheap shot.

 

[VociMike]

That’s disgusting and beneath you. The questions was very well answered in its historical context well up-thread. I’m disappointed that you would take such a cheap shot.

Really. Does his mother know he talks like that? Do his children?

 

[AgnosTheist]

After all, merda taurorum animas conturbit.

Pax vobiscum,

say whaaaat?

 

[ibkc]

There are always some advantages to knowing a dead language. After all, merda taurorum animas conturbit.

Pax vobiscum,

O+

Do you kiss your momma with that mouth?

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.

 

[mercygate]

say whaaaat?

Those of us who know what it means know better than to try to say it in English because we would get busted for foul language!

 

[AgnosTheist]

Those of us who know what it means know better than to try to say it in English because we would get busted for foul language!

thank god for google. it means “nonsense baffles the brain”.

i agree. why should a religion force people to hear and say a language they cant understand. this reminds me of a non-arab muslim who reads an arabic quran upside down! my grandparents used to recite latin prayers too, though they hardly have a clue what it means.

Ave! Ave! Ave Mariaaaa!!! Which filipino kids dont understand and instead ridicule it as “UBE! UBE! UBE MARIA!”. ube is a purple fruit similiar to sweet potatoes.

 

[VociMike]

i agree. why should a religion force people

Incorrect. Show me who’s forcing anybody.

to hear and say a language they cant understand.

Incorrect. It’s easy to pick up the repeated prayers. And it’s commonplace to have a Latin-English missal. But if I end up in a Spanish or Vietnamese or Tagalog or Polish Mass, I’m certainly not going to have a missal for those.

The concept of a sacred (literally - set aside for God) language is practically universal. Even the American Evangelicals have one - the old English of the King James Bible.