www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings latin vulgate and ancient languages

its my understanding for the western church the bible was always in its latin vulgate form translated from the original hebrew, greek and aramaic to have the bible in another ancient classical language that translated well from the originals and latin being a language liturgically western catholics would have all been accustomed too, especially liturgically. and as for the eastern churches at the time i am guessing there were bibles in coptic, greek, aramaic, arabic slavonic ect. the protestants basically started the whole read the bible in your own local vernacular idea, because rome wasnt happy when martin luther translated the bible into german, and i think for good reason, it creates all of these versions and translations and even today theres protestant missionaries who try to translate the bible into very uneasy languages like the ones the natives in mexico or other hispanic nations use that just dont translate well. i understand the mass population isnt going to try to learn latin anymore or aramaic, coptic or old slavonik but why doesnt the church whether catholic or orthodox endorse a classical language bible version and in it parallel to the local vernacular? for example the latin on oneside and english, or french, or german on the other for latin catholics. just a thought.

Mateuz,

the first translation of Sacred Scripture occured from Hebrew into Greek, the Septuagint (LXX), which is what Christians refer to as the Old Testament. The reason for the translation was due to the fact that the Jewish population of Alexandria spoke Greek (the vernacular) and not Hebrew.

When Sacred Sripture was translated into Latin, it was basically for the same reason- Latin was the common language in the West, i.e., it was the vernacular at the time. The original languages used by the writers of Sacred Scripture were not "classical" or "liturgical" languages as we identify them today, but were in fact the vernacular of that period. The same can be said for the Syriac or Slavonic texts. There were all the vernacular translations of their day.

The Church was not so much against translating Sacred Scripture into the vernacular as it was against those who were going to use the vernacular translation, or more correctly, a vernacular interpretation, for some other agenda which would be at odds with the teaching of the Church. We see this today with the Jehovah Witnesses' New World Translation in which the Prologue of Saint John's Gospel is "translated" to identify the Word of God (Jesus Christ) as "a god".

BTW, the official translation of Sacred Scripture for the Latin Church is the New Vulgate ( Nova Vulgata ) promulagated in 1979 by John Paul II during his first year as Pope of Rome, and replaced the the Vulgate edition which was promulgated by Clement VIII (1592) and had been adopted as the official text by the Council of Trent in 1546. The "old" Vulgate was the Latin text prepared by St Jerome in the late 4th and early 5th centuries. This text actually replaced an earlier Latin translation, the "Itala". The "Itala" had been translated from Greek manuscripts.

Interesting to note the Latin word "vulgata", from were the English word "vulgar" is derived, means "popular" or "common", denoting is use among the people.

Mateusz,before the Protestant vernacular Bibles cam out in German the were 10 editions of the Bible before Luther and about 5 before the KJV in English.

thank you, well i think my main point is that alot of the meanin in words from the original can be lost in translations, and this can be as dangerous as individual interpretation of scriptures.

Then again there were the pre Jeromian texts known as the Vetus Latina.
Stephanos I

Deacon John�

First, may I say that was a wonderful and concise explanation. You know my respect for you.

Now, may I ask a question... in the spirit of discussion:

Why do many of the East insist on calling the Roman Catholic Church - the �Latin Church�? (I am seriously and with open mind asking)� when no one else calls it such.

I notice Michael�s good comment to a newbie who used the tern �Uniate��
Michael appeals to charity - perhaps we Roman Catholic present here should also appeal to charity.

I am aware, as most of us are, that the term Latin and Latin-ised is often used in a derogatory manner. To be Latin-ized is to be corrupted. The use of this term in such a way has been noted several times on this board (Byzantine, Orthodox, and RC have made not of the derogatory use).

All particular churches are named for their location of for their bishoporic� why do most of the East call the Roman Catholic Church the �Latin Church�? when it is the Roman Catholic Church (named for the seat of Peter in Rome) and it uses the Roman Liturgy (varied languages among them Latin).

It seems to me that it is a throw back to schism and division. A habit of �slang� that came into use at the time because Latin was the official language of the Roman Catholic church (for reasons you gave). Since the culture was the Roman culture and only the language was Latin - and the �Latin Rite� refers to the language used - how did it first come about that some in the East began to call it the �Latin Church�?

I am aware it was called the �Latin Rite� when said in Latin - but it seems to me that the fact remained that Latin is the language - and the Liturgy has always been the Roman Liturgy. And all churches are called after the seat of the patriarch. The Greek Orthodox Church is Greek because of the country and not the language.

Obviously there is no such thing as the �Latin Church� and no Catholic calls his church anything else but its proper name (The Roman Catholic Church).

Forgive me for bringing this to you, and your respect for the Roman Catholic Church is well assumed in you posts�. So I know full well you do not use the tern �Latin Church� in a derogatory way but simple follow custom and habit of many of the Eastern churches. It seems to me a habit which time has well past.

If my name was legally �Ray� and I tell people my name is Ray - and someone keeps calling me Billy-Bob - would I not think that there is a lack of respect on his part?

Now believe me - I am not that sensitive to the term. I have been on this board a few years and only mentioned it a few times. When I fist came to this board it confused the heck out of me (as I am a Roman Catholic and had never heard my Church being Called �Latin�). It did come to bother me that the term �Latin-ised� was most often used in a way to portray my church as a force seeking to corrupted Eastern ways. But I have come to know that it is just the way of life - the evolution of culture and society - it is the West and Western ways which dominate the world and which continue to be slowly adopted by the Eastern countries. In the same way that English has now become to the world what Latin once was (a universal language). So some of this 'Latini-zation' is not the fault of my church at all but just the reality of th ebb and flow of cultures.

This is a discussion board and so I bring up this - to discuss. It is not meant to be a personal critic of anyone on this board. I am well aware - it is habit and most times has no bad intention.

Please remember me in your prayers.
-ray

Dear Ray,

I wish you a pleasant Lord's Day!

Please see this "Roman" Catholic link [newadvent.org] which has a rather good discussion of the use of Latin Church, Latin Catholic, etc.

Please allow me to mention that the various sees of the Eastern Orthodox Church in places such as Antioch, Jerusalem, etc., use the term "Greek" not because of the country of location (rather obviously) but because of patrimony, rite, etc. It may be useful to remember that the nation of Greece is rather modern and the notion of Greek precedes it. Further, Latium (in modern Italian Lazio) is the region in which Rome is located.

For further thought, when was Byzantium Christian? Byzantine Catholics? Wouldn't Constantinopolitan Catholics be better?

I wish you all a profitable Great Week.

Tony

OK.. now my head hurts (dizzy) - nothing new.

So apparently the world was divided into four patriarchates... and one recieved the name Latin.

I went to vatican,va and I did find the term Latin Church being used here and there even in recent documents.

Thanks Tony - it looks like I need to understand this so I will do more research.

"Tony" now that is a good Greek name. (joking)

-ray

Ray,

as you no doubt have discovered from Tony's link the term Latin as a reference to the Patriarchate of the West is very old indeed. I certainly did not use the term "Latin Church" in a derogatory manner. If I recall my history, the term "Roman Catholic" was originally employed by Protestants (?) as a perjorative against those subject to the pope. "Roman Catholic" was probably not unlike the perjorative "uniate".

BTW, you can probably discern from its context when "Latin-" is used in a derogatory manner, i.e., typically in its verb forms- latinize, latinized,latinizing- and that noun derived from the verb- latinization.

Oh no.. no, no, I didn't think you did - in fact I almost deleted my post for fear that you might think I was, even in a round about way, accusing you. The written word has no 'tone' and so I feared you might be offended.

Before knowing its real and full backgound... I found that I was begining to be irritated by it... and I expressed that irritation and aked for help - and you people filled me in very nicely! There are a few areas of study which I know very well (more than most I think) and that leaves a great majority of areas in which I know very little or only 'imagine' I know something.

I myself, was having trouble with the term. Tony (in another thread) helped me out very well... and did a few more people, I now know its origin and use (tada!) and now know it is not just slang. I am now happy to be a Latin. in my right brain and an Easterner in my left brain.

It was my confusion and I really didn't know how to express it.

My head is thick and often dark. I thank the patient people here (you included) for light on the subject.

My thanks to you Deacon John for your charity and patience and understanding. As most often, your post has been a light to me.

-ray

To answer one question, Byzantium was the name of the small town that stood on the site that Constantine selected for the new eastern capital of the Roman Empire. The new capital was no longer called Byzantium, although any educated person there would have known that that had been the earlier name. The expression "Byzantine Empire" was totally unknown; no one ever thought of it as other than the Roman Empire, and the citizens of that empire assumed that they possessed full and unquestionable romanitas. For old-fashioned Greeks, Romiki Ekklisia is the church of the Roman Empire--the Orthodox Church, of course. Katholiki Ekklisia is equally obviously the Orthodox Church, as it says right there in the Creed (just as Apostoliki Ekklisia and Agia Ekklesia would be taken to refer to the Orthodox Church), unless one were perhaps referring to the Katholikon or chapel of a monastery. So how does one speak of a Roman Catholic in Greek? Aftos Frangos--he's a Frank. It's no compliment either; remember, the Fourth Crusade was less than a millennium ago. So "Latin Church" also becomes a standard expression. "Latinization" came into use when the problem appeared--namely the distortion of what we now call the "Byzantine" Rite by its being conformed in various ways to the "Roman" rite. The term "Byzantine" in the sense of "Byzantine" Empire was invented by 19th-century French historians. In the languages of the Orthodox East, it is now used, but is a quite recent importation from the West, and occurs mostly in scholarly discourse. In Greece, people still think of themselves as Romaii and outside of scholarly writing do not think of themselves or their ancestors as "Byzantines." "Byzantine Catholic" is of course even more recent, replacing the official Austro-Hungarian designation "Greek Catholic." It has the advantage of avoiding the controversial issue of national identity, but can be confusing, as when a collection of prostopinije with English text is entitled "Byzantine Chant"--the whole rest of the world understands by that expression the church singing of the Greeks (and of neighboring peoples who sing the same chant as the Greeks).

Cultural presuppositions differ with culture. Those of the Christian East are not those of the Christian West, and often there is no neutral terminology. (And that statement itself is culturally conditioned; when Assyrians or Chaldeans speak of the "Western Church," they meant the Greeks.)

Stephen

Quite interesting. Thanks.

-ray

Very Interesting! thanks

Pani Rose

Yes, Martin Luther just translated the Bible from "high Deutch" to "low Deutch", sort of like our modern translation of the "Good news for Modern Man" translation.

well, the Jerusalem Bible claims to be a direct translation from the Greek.

I once saw a Black man on the subway reading the Koran in Arabic. So why can't Christians learn Greek?

"All particular churches are named for their location of for their bishoporic� why do most of the East call the Roman Catholic Church the �Latin Church�? when it is the Roman Catholic Church (named for the seat of Peter in Rome) and it uses the Roman Liturgy (varied languages among them Latin)."

Actually, the term "Latin Church" would encompass all of those for whom Latin was their liturgical language: not merely those following the Roman Rite, but the Ambrosian and Mozarabic uses, and the variant customs followed in the orders of monks and canons regular in the west (i.e., Norbertines, Carmelites, Dominicans, Carthusians, Cistertians). The first two mentioned are DEFINITELY not the Roman Rite; the usages of the canons regular/monks are distinct variants of the Roman Rite. The only sobriquet which covers all of these would the the "Latin Church."

"Yes, Martin Luther just translated the Bible from "high Deutch" to "low Deutch", sort of like our modern translation of the "Good news for Modern Man" translation."

Martin Luther did no such thing. He translated the Scriptures from Hebrew and Greek into his local Saxon dialect, which became the basis for what became Hochdeutsch (High German). He didn't even dwell in a place where Plattdeutsch (Low German) was used.

"Well, the Jerusalem Bible claims to be a direct translation from the Greek."

The original Jerusalem Bible (i.e., translated into French) was a translation from the Hebrew, the Aramaic, and the Greek. The first English translation of the Jerusalem Bible definitely CONSULTED the original languages, but was made from French. It was substantially revised and retranslated when the "New Jerusalem Bible" came out in the late 1980s.

"I once saw a Black man on the subway reading the Koran in Arabic. So why can't Christians learn Greek? "

Christians can, and indeed should, learn Greek (and Hebrew and Aramaic). However, the reason that the Koran is taught in Arabic is that true Muslims believe that it cannot give its full meaning when translated into another tongue. That is why every Muslim-authorized translation of the Koran has (either on the title-page or in the introduction) a disclaimer that the work in the reader's hand is an INTERPRETATION of the Koran.

The Christian Scriptures, instead, have been translated everywhere the Good News has been proclaimed. We are not all called to be Greeks--we are all called to be people of the Word.

(Prof.) J. Michael Thompson
Byzantine Catholic Seminary
Pittsburgh, PA