Replies

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...

Your really talking about two completely different time periods here. The Vulgate antidates Pauls letter by about 330 years (look at how much English has changed in half that time). Can you give any evidence that Latin was not the common language circa 400 A.D. ? Every site I have found has said that Latin overtook Greek as the common language of the empire (not just Rome) around 350. A letter to Rome 350 years earlier is evidence that Greek was the common tongue (or at least the Church's common tongue) 350 years earlier. How does that bear on whether the Vulgate translation was or was not an "elites only" work of the RCC? These aren't RC sites, just a broad search for Scripture translations. Most of the sites I've looked at are Wycliff and Tyndale references.

I can understand the need for a Latin translation, especially when much of the Hierarchy and Priests spoke Latin. It is true that very few of the laity read the Bible no matter what language. They didn't have the $$$$$'s. (Which leads to my belief the Gutenberg Press was more responsible for the Reformation than Luther). My question is, when did Latin become a "dead" language?

From New Advent, under Latin literature in early Christianity. The most ancient Latin document emanating from the Roman Church is the correspondence of its clergy with Carthage during the vacancy of the Apostolic See following on the death of Pope Fabian (20 January, 250). One of the letters is the work of Novatian, the first Christian writer to use the Latin language at Rome. But even at this epoch, Greek is still the official language: the original epitaphs of the popes are still composed in Greek. We have those of Anterus, of Fabian, of Lucius, of Gaius, and the series brings us down to 296. That of Cornelius, which is in Latin, seems to be later than the third century.

One of my points last night, was that Latin was promoted to where it finally became dominant right after the Bible canon was put together.

Are you saying that the church began saying mass in Latin so more people could understand it?

JH

Your really talking about two completely different time periods here. The Vulgate antidates Pauls letter by about 330 years (look at how much English has changed in half that time). Can you give any evidence that Latin was not the common language circa 400 A.D. ? Every site I have found has said that Latin overtook Greek as the common language of the empire (not just Rome) around 350. A letter to Rome 350 years earlier is evidence that Greek was the common tongue (or at least the Church's common tongue) 350 years earlier. How does that bear on whether the Vulgate translation was or was not an "elites only" work of the RCC? These aren't RC sites, just a broad search for Scripture translations. Most of the sites I've looked at are Wycliff and Tyndale references.

What I'm looking at is the pattern of the spread over time and the use of the phraseology "Dominant language". The laws of the Spanish, French and Germanics were written in their own tongues - That's point one. The dominant language of these groups was their traditional language at that time ie Spanish, French and German - Not latin. Which negates the notion of Latin being the Dominant language. Dominant means the language takes preiminance. There is no evidence that this is the case save for in the Church. Which tends to support the notion that Latin, vulgar or otherwise, was likely a religious language much as Heiroglyphics were the religious language of Egypt. As the priesthood vanished, so too did full comprehension of that language. Such is the case with dead languages.

Ultimately, outside of the heart of the Empire of Ancient Rome, Latin was not widely enough known to survive - to the extent that it so completely disappeared that no one knows how to properly speak it today with 100% certainty. And the only people who seem to know that Latin was predominant are people who talk with regard to religion. Show me early German law written in latin and I'll show you a modern fairy tale. Show me common usage of latin in texts outside the clerical and you'd have something.

People who had direct commerce with Rome Did commerce in Latin and in Greek; but mostly in Greek. The use of Latin within the Church early on seems to be an attempt to maintain what was crippled ship of state trying to right itself. It never happened. The Empire died and it's language with it. Show me evidence to the contrary, and you'll have an argument. I don't go with what someone says merely because they say it. There has to be evidence to back it up. And so far, I haven't seen any. But then I haven't made the study of Latin my lifes work either. In the modern day, latin has no real use aside from it's application to medical science. And since medical science developed more out of documented latin than out of heiratic or Greek, that is the only other place wherein the language has any significance today. Something worth noting; but, not lending itself to either side of the debate.