That the Septuganit was translated into Latin,
That a man we call St. Jerome did the work,
That he did it in A.D. 390-405,
or that people in Ancient Rome spoke Latin?
v.
The Vulgate was "commissioned" in 382 and delivered (in it's first form) in 384. It was the later re-work of the OT from the Hebrew (instead of the Septuagint Greek) that took until 405 (or so). :)
v-That the Septuagint was translated into Latin,
That a man we call St. Jerome did the work,
That he did it in A.D. 390-405,
or that people in Ancient Rome spoke Latin?
Pretty much all the above.
The Septuagint was the Greek translation from the original Hebrew, and it was only the Old Testament.
What happened toward the end of the 4th century that suddenly the Church, empowered by Constantine, found it necessary to have the Greek Septuagint translated into Latin?
It was in 367AD, that the first canon of the New Testament with all 27 writings were finally completed, and even though few spoke Latin at the time, as it was the language of the elite and sophisticates, those in power of the catholic Church, (not yet the official name, )
With the cannon now assembled, many were reading it in total for the first time, and it didn’t match up with the established beliefs and doctrine that was developing, so it was shoved under the rug until the hierarchy could figure how to handle the discrepancies, such as scripture with Christ saying to call no man on earth father, which was already in use, and he also said there was to be no mediator between man and God but Christ Jesus, and with the ever virgin Mary being said to have other children.
The solution was to translate the Bible into a language that only a certain few people were able to read, and to then make it compulsory for all priest to learn Latin and to use it with his congregation.
Then years later others began translating the Bible into German and then English, the Church did everything in it’s power to destroy them, but finally the battle was won, and the truth finally came out in English that most could now read and compare with what they had been taught.
The rest is history, but this is what I have gleaned from the many articles I’ve read on the subject, and the reason I believe it, is because it explains why a Church would be able to develop doctrine that is at opposites with the Holy scripture and Christ, that they claimed to represent.
While the false doctrine may have started being developed before there were clear guidelines as to what the Christian church was to believe, instead of them doing what God’s people would be expected to do, and correct the mistakes, they ignored the scripture they tried to take credit for organizing into the canon, and went about as they had been, developing customs, traditions, and doctrine to suite their purpose, and that was to acquire more power and control.
Paul had said to do the things that you have heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit you to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also, and since they had failed to do this, there whole foundation was corrupt, and the next 1000 years would be spent covering their tracks.
Can I prove all of this? No, no more then you can prove it’s not the way it happened. This is just my gut feeling and the only way I can explain why the RCC has such disdane and little use for the Holy Bible, written by the God they claim is their boss.
JH
Rome Italy may have spoken latin, but, Latin was not the dominant language empire wide. Greek was the dominant language. Interesting isn't it - That even Paul's letter to the Church in Rome was written in Greek to ensure they'd understand it...