Why latin?

[descout]

My question is why did the Catholic church for so long want to keep the Word in latin? Why was it so hesitant to bring the Word into a vernacular tongue? It seemed that after some English language protestant bibles did the Catholic church decided that it needed a English Bible.

Was it true that the Catholic church burned people at the stake for having a non latin bible?

These questions come from a bible history site found here. greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

 

[crazzeto]

My question is why did the Catholic church for so long want to keep the Word in latin? Why was it so hesitant to bring the Word into a vernacular tongue? It seemed that after some English language protestant bibles did the Catholic church decided that it needed a English Bible.

Was it true that the Catholic church burned people at the stake for having a non latin bible?

These questions come from a bible history site found here. greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

You’ve believed a lot of lies and mis-information about your church. The fact is the Church has had the bible in the venacular since it commissioned St. Jerome to translate it into Latin. Beleive it or not, this was done because nobody could read the original Greek, Hebrew & Aramaic. In Englad, the first venacular bible that I’m aware of was a Saxon version published in 700A.D., since then it kept venacular versions available as the native toung of the land changed. The Douay bible, for instance was first published in 1609, the KJV wouldnt’ be released until 1611, of course there were plenty of english scriptures before even 1609, and before Tyndale and Wycleff. In Germany, Luther was very late to the game with a German bible.

I suggest you read this book:
Where we got the bible: our debt to the Catholic Church

you can also buy it cheap at amazon
amazon.com/Where-Bible-Debt-Catholic-Church/dp/0895557967/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270740619&sr=1-1

 

[descout]

Well it is not that I believed those things. But I feel it is only fair that that I read both sides of the story and test all! I believe that the church has had the Word in the vernacular but this source was just saying that it did not.

So when St. Jerome published the Latin Vulgate it was in fact to put it into a vernacular tongue. Right? So the fact that it was changed from Greek and Hebrew into latin is really proof that the CC did not want to hide the Word but to keep the Word so it could be read by all.

On the other hand why did it take so long, 1609, til an English tongue came along from the latin?

Thanks for the suggested reading. I will most definitely read.

 

[1ke]

My question is why did the Catholic church for so long want to keep the Word in latin?

The Church translated the Bible into many languages, from the beginning of the Church right up to the present day. The Church had no desire to keep the bible in a particular language, nor any prohibition on translating it.

Perhaps you are confusing the Bible with the prayers of the Mass. The official language, even today, of the Church is Latin and the prayers of the Mass are in Latin and the documents of the Church are written in Latin.

Why was it so hesitant to bring the Word into a vernacular tongue?

It was not. This is a false idea.

It seemed that after some English language protestant bibles did the Catholic church decided that it needed a English Bible.

This too is inaccurate.

Was it true that the Catholic church burned people at the stake for having a non latin bible?

The Church didn’t burn people at the stake, for having non-Latin bibles or otherwise.

Those who created unauthorized translations (i.e. ones with heretical interpretation, leaving out sections, adding things, etc) were of course censured. Individual governments did at times take extreme measures against those printing and promoting their unauthorized and incorrect versions of the bible. The leaders of the country saw it as their duty to protect its citizenry from corruption.

The most famous of course is Tyndale, whom many non-Catholics hold up as an example of this alleged burning at the stake. However, he was executed on the order of Henry VIII (who had already separated from the Catholic Church), not the Catholic Church.

These questions come from a bible history site found here. greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

That is not a bible history site. It is a propaganda site.

I believe this is a better source for information:

newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm#english

 

[Cominghome89]

On the other hand why did it take so long, 1609, til an English tongue came along from the latin?

It did not take a long time, I think that is the point being made. It is important to understand the history and evolution of language itself. English comes from several Germanic tribes, the language has evolved over centuries from the Angles, Saxons and Jutes. Up until 1100, Old English was spoken, and would be indecipherable to us today. Even the very earliest versions of Modern English were not present until around 1500AD. As was said in an earlier post, the Bible was translated into Saxon, one of the languages that evolved into English, as early as 700AD.

Even if people had spoken English for a long time, there is also a key difference between speaking and reading. This is crucial. While many people spoke the vernacular language, throughout the Middle Ages, anybody who was well-educated enough to read at all, read Latin. There was simply not the great demand to translate the Bible into the vernaculars. This can seem very peculiar, especially in a time and place where basically the entire country is literate and used to each country reading and writing in the vernacular.

So to answer the issues briefly, did the Catholic Church keep the Bible from being translated out of Latin? No, there were many pre-Luther vernacular translations. Well, why didn’t they translate into more languages, and earlier? There simply wasn’t any need. It’s crucial to take off our 2010 viewpoints when looking at history, or we are bound to miss the context of the times. Hope this was helpful.

In Christ,
Frank

 

[1ke]

On the other hand why did it take so long, 1609, til an English tongue came along from the latin?

The story of English is quite complex. The first reason it took so long is that English as a language we know today did not exist. The Anglo-Saxon language of the early centuries is not English. There are gospels, psalters, and other extant documents showing the that translations did exist early on in that tongue.

In the middle years, remember that the aristocracy were all Norman and spoke French. There are tons of extant books from that time period in French, and of course this makes sense as that was the language of those who could read. Old English (that of Chaucer and such) existed but there was not much in the way of literature written in that language. Those writing for the court wrote in French.

The combination of the Hundred Years War and the Black Death both influences the development of the language we today call English-- the English of Shakespeare. It didn’t emerge until rather late.

Remember, too, that within that same century, the Church in England was being greatly oppressed and outright expelled. The “authorized” versions in English were coming out of Henry VIII and Elizabeth’s rule.

The story of English is a complex story. I don’t think you can boil it down to “why did it take so long.” There are many factors, and none of them are some sort of resistance on the part of the Church.

 

[crazzeto]

All good replies, just to add the follow

#1 was Latin the Vulgar toung in C382 AD… Well lets put it this way, the Roman Empire was still existant at that time!! Certainly Latin was the vulgar toung, and that is why the bible was translated into that language

#2 Why did it take till 1609 for an English bible to come about??
A number of factors, first and formost is that it didn’t take that long at all. It took that long for the authoratative Douay-Rheims translation to be completed. Now why is it called the Douay-Rheims bible when originally translation was supposed to begin and complete in Douay England?

Because as others have mentioned, King Henry the VIII and most of his successors (his immedate was a staunch Catholic) suppressed the church so completely it was impossible to begin the work in Douay, thus the project moved to Rheims Fance. When the OT was completed (Rheims), the NT could begin in Douay. The Church was still illegal in England mind you, but at least they could somewhat operate, at least enough to translate the NT and publish the complete Douay-Rhiems bible.

Also as others had mentioned, anyone who could read and write at this point could read and write Latin. Thus there was no demand for inferiour vulgar translantions. People were quite happy to read the superior Latin translation. Lets just say, there wasn’t a good complete English translation until the Douay bible was published.

Edit
I would exhort the OP to read and study the matters for him self rather than purely taking our word for it. It isn’t that we’re not giving good information, to the contrary everything I’ve read has been terrific. But there’s a certain power that comes with researching the matter your self, when you do this you can more authoratativly refute these matters, and correct those souls who misguidedly believe such non-sense.

 

[Spencerian]

Here’s another reason why the Bible was kept in Latin: Simplicity.

Think of the many English translations of the Scriptures today. With only one good translation from the sources, fewer errors in translation or teaching resulted.

Also, remember that the Protestant Reformation took place at a time where mass printing was in its infancy. Many simply couldn’t afford or get books because the printing press was just gaining ground. (That’s why some Bibles were chained in parishes…not to suppress the word of God, but to keep an expensive and important book from disappearing.)

The cost of printing Bibles was also a reason why Protestant bibles are smaller. Luther moved the deuterocanonical books to an appendix. To save on printing costs, English print houses would later just omit these 7 books altogether.

 

[crazzeto]

The cost of printing Bibles was also a reason why Protestant bibles are smaller. Luther moved the deuterocanonical books to an appendix. To save on printing costs, English print houses would later just omit these 7 books altogether.

He did the same to St. James, Jude, Hebrews & Revelation but his reformation co-horts protested that one too much.

 

[descout]

A number of factors, first and formost is that it didn’t take that long at all. It took that long for the authoratative Douay-Rheims translation to be completed. Now why is it called the Douay-Rheims bible when originally translation was supposed to begin and complete in Douay England?

Because as others have mentioned, King Henry the VIII and most of his successors (his immedate was a staunch Catholic) suppressed the church so completely it was impossible to begin the work in Douay, thus the project moved to Rheims Fance. When the OT was completed (Rheims), the NT could begin in Douay. The Church was still illegal in England mind you, but at least they could somewhat operate, at least enough to translate the NT and publish the complete Douay-Rhiems bible.

Also as others had mentioned, anyone who could read and write at this point could read and write Latin. Thus there was no demand for inferiour vulgar translantions. People were quite happy to read the superior Latin translation. Lets just say, there wasn’t a good complete English translation until the Douay bible was published.

If I am not mistaking… Was it not the OT that was written in Douay and the NT in France? And the NT was complete before the OT? In my own research from my D-R that is what I have found.

Edit
I would exhort the OP to read and study the matters for him self rather than purely taking our word for it. It isn’t that we’re not giving good information, to the contrary everything I’ve read has been terrific. But there’s a certain power that comes with researching the matter your self, when you do this you can more authoratativly refute these matters, and correct those souls who misguidedly believe such non-sense.

I will most definitely do my own research. All the posts here are clear and very consise and make a good sense.

 

[crazzeto]

If I am not mistaking… Was it not the OT that was written in Douay and the NT in France? And the NT was complete before the OT? In my own research from my D-R that is what I have found.

I will most definitely do my own research. All the posts here are clear and very consise and make a good sense.

You are correct, I had it backwards thanks.

 

[Ignatius]

My question is why did the Catholic church for so long want to keep the Word in latin? /

Actually, it wasn’t just the Church. Latin was the lilnga franka throughout the world for over a millenium. Up until the 50’s Latin was the language used to teach medicin, law and science. For well over 1000 years, anyone in Europe who could read, Latin.

 

[NHInsider]

Actually, it wasn’t just the Church. Latin was the lilnga franka throughout the world for over a millenium. Up until the 50’s Latin was the language used to teach medicin, law and science. For well over 1000 years, anyone in Europe who could read, Latin.

In this country (USA) you couldn’t get a college degree without a decent reading knowledge of Latin until probably the Civil War. High school college-prep curricula still included Latin in the 1970s.

 

[Nita]

My question is why did the Catholic church for so long want to keep the Word in latin? Why was it so hesitant to bring the Word into a vernacular tongue? It seemed that after some English language protestant bibles did the Catholic church decided that it needed a English Bible.

The following link gives some history of early English translations (scroll down 3/4 of the way to “English Versions”). newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm

Another factor to keep in mind is WHEN England became Christian. Naturally it wouldn’t be until some time afterwards that the Scriptures would be translated into that language.
newadvent.org/cathen/01505a.htm
Everyone knows the story of the Roman Mission which first brought to the English the knowledge of the Gospel. St. Gregory’s deep compassion for the angel-faces of some captive Angle children in the Roman slave-market led in time to the sending of the monk St. Augustine and his companions. They were well received by Ethelbert of Kent who had already married a Christian wife. Augustine landed in Thanet only in 597, but before the end of the century most of the Jutes of Kent had been converted. …
On Ethelbert’s death in 616 great reverses befell the cause of Christianity. Essex and part of Kent apostatized…

 

[Zooey]

1. There were Catholic Bibles in English long before there was a Protestant Bible in English. Indeed, there were Catholic Bibles in English long before there were Protestants.
2. Translating the Bible into Latin put it in the common language of the ordinary person. The Roman Empire had m,ade the knowledge of Latin nearly universal, at least among people with any education at all. Which means: everyone who could read. You learnt to read Latin before you learnt to read any other language. (A lot of languages weren’t even written down back then. They were purely oral/aural).
3. The Catholic Church didn’t burn people at the stake. The Catholic Church, in fact, did not execute people at all; secular governments executed people for a variety of reasons, but then so do they now. The people who are commonly said (on the sort of site you referenced) to have been executed by the Catholic Church for owning or translating Bibles, are inevitably folks who had gotten themselves in wrong politically. A lot of them were very unpleasant people indeed, as they were engaged in trying to overthrow legally constituted governments. Their religion (or lack of it), had little or nothing to do with the case.
4. On Latin again: My ancestors in Ireland were buying & selling goods** in Latin** at the local market stalls right up to the days that they sailed for America in the 18th C., & those they left behind continued to do so well into the 20th century. Latin was the common language of English speakers & speakers of the Gaelic. People think of it as rare & somehow exotic. It was nothing of the kind. (Would I should live to see the day that Latin returns to its former prominence, but the schools on both sides of the Atlantic will need EXTREME fixing done for that to occur; I expect I shall needs wait for the next world for that).

 

[puzzleannie]

My question is why did the Catholic church for so long want to keep the Word in latin? Why was it so hesitant to bring the Word into a vernacular tongue? It /

uh when the official language of the Church gradually changed in the West from Greek to Latin, Latin WAS the vernacular throughout the empire. Is this a trick question? Latin remained the unifying language in the west not only for liturgy and Church government, records and administration, but also in many civil law and other areas for centuries which is why it was taught in schools well into the last century. It is a matter of western culture and history.

 

[LilyM]

Interesting anecdotes Miz Zooey. Reminds me of one of my own.

A doctor of my acquaintance (educated half a world away in Europe, and 50 years ago when Latin was an indispensable part of a medical education) tells a story about having a patient who was a drug addict come to him demanding drugs. Seeing the patient was more than a little agitated, rather than argue the point he made vague promises to ‘give him something’, which required some fast thinking.

Knowing that the neighbourhood pharmacist, raised and educated right here in Australia, was of the same vintage, he knew that he too would’ve had at least some Latin as a part of his education. He wrote a prescription for plain ol’ sugar pills for the patient - but in Latin so the patient couldn’t decipher it. Chemist understood perfectly, problem solved.

So yes, the ol’ Latin can certainly come in handy.