> >Simon :
>
> >The scriptures were also read out in latin in church. So the congregatio
> > didn't have a clue what it meant - so what? To read it in vulgar local
> >language
Actually, wrong. Latin _was_ the vulgar local language.
Latin is a language of peasants and soldiers.
The Vulgate isn't written in classical latin. It's written in a highly elegant and literary form of vulgate latin, which was the language of the people, and vulgarly local.
The congregation, in fact, had no difficulty whatsoever understanding the texts.
> would pollute the supposed purity of the text.
In fact, the doctrine of Biblical purity is an invention of the late Middle Ages and Renaissance. Previously, it was considered to be a working text meant for use (and abuse) by Christians. Many modern Catholics still use it like that.
> I think that in this case, the West bears more similarity to the treatment
> of the Koran: The text will be known and understood by the congregations.
Yes, the idea of textual purity can be traced back to basically arab (pre-moslem) philosophy. The Koran is of course a higher expression of that philosophy.
> A historical aside - which Latin translation of the bible did the catholic
> church declare as sacrosanct?
The Biblia Sacra Vulgata, translated by a project team managed by Saint Jerome.
Biblia Sacra Vulgata can be loosely translated as "A Popular Edition of the Holy Books", which is to say that they were translated into the day-to-day language of ordinary people Empire-wide (Hint, Hint) ... ;-)
However, the currently sacrosanct version is the so-called Nova Vulgata, which is basically the same work expunged of its philological inaccuracies (ie references to Jesus as a historical figure in the Old Testament et cetera).
The final volume of the Nova Vulgata was published about 2-4 years ago.
Personally, I'm unimpressed. Saint Jerome's work is a marvel of poetry and elegance !
If it ain't broken, don't fix it ...
Julian Lord
--__--__--
Powered by hypermail