> > The congregation, in fact, had no difficulty whatsoever understanding the
> > texts.
>
> This is a serious oversimplification. At the time that Jerome was
> translating the Bible into Latin, Latin was the language of most people in
> Western Europe, so in the 4th and 5th centuries, many people would have
> understood it if read to them (although it probably would have sounded much
> like formal high British pronunciation sounds to a farmer in the American
> south).
I fail to see that it was a serious oversimplification, given that I meant exactly what you have just stated.
> It is true that in France, Italy, and the Iberian Peninsula, the general
> population in the Early Middle Ages spoke a debased form of Latin which
> might well have allowed them to understand the written Latin of the Vulgate
> when it was read out loud. However, pronunciation was already changing, so
> it is unclear that, say, a French peasant would have fully understood the
> words he was hearing, because they were being pronounced in a somewhat
> different manner than the conversations he had around the dinner table. In
> Italy, comprehension would have been higher.
But the priests would have used local pronunciation, etc.
Your suggestion that Italians would have had improved comprehension is incorrect. Resemblances between modern Italian and Latin are derived from 18th - 20th century word derivation from Latin, and not directly from the Latin sources themselves.
> By the time we get to the 12th century,
So, 700 or 800 years later, right ?
You're comparing apples with oranges.
> the average French or Spanish
> peasant would no longer have understand the Vulgate readings he heard at
> church because his vernacular would have diverged too far from its Latin
> base.
Actually, 12th century Spaniards (as opposed to 12th century Moors) would have had relatively few problems. Medieval spanish remained remarkably similar to the Latin roots, for complex reasons.
> In Britain, Germany, Scandinavia and elsewhere in Europe, there would
> not have been any comprehension of a reading from the Vulgate at any point,
Nor would there be any such comprehension in Outer Mongolia, Indonesia, nor anywhere else where Latin was never the official language. So what ?
The fact remains that the Vulgate Bible was written in the language of ordinary people "everywhere" (AKA the Roman Empire), and they would have had about as much difficulty understanding it as an English farm labourer understanding, say, LOTR.
> because these people were speaking a language that was totally unrelated to
> Latin.
But how is this relevant to the Abiding Tongue ?
> > 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.
>
> In the 15th century, there was considerable hostility
> among the educated to the idea of retranslating the Bible, even into Latin.
Well hey, that is _exactly_ why I talked about the _previous_ periods !
> But the way the text was understood by scholars was more complex than it is
> today.
I very much doubt that assertion.
> The Bible was not seen as having an exclusively literal meaning. In
> fact, medieval exegesis recognized 4 distinct layers of meaning in the text,
> and any one of them was suitable for study and exegesis.
Literal ; allegorical ; moral ; spiritual.
These 4 classical exegetic layers continue to be considered suitable for study, except that now you can add the philological ; historical ; literary ; philosophical ; and a whole slew of other distinct layers. Less complex ? Hardly !
> Incidentally, the translation ascribed to Jerome was not solely his
> work.
'twas why I spoke of a "project team".
> The nuns of Bethlehem assisted him in his work and evidence suggests
> that a fair chunk of 'Jerome's Bible' was actually their work.
That is a complete exaggeration. Will you be suggesting that the prefatory texts are forgeries ? It's hardly a secret that Jerome didn't do everything himself, and IIRC that when he died the Book was only about 90-95% done. Nevertheless, it's generally accepted that most of the Book was personally revised by him, et least.
Like I suggested, he was a project manager.
Previously, each local community used its own local translations. And subsequently too, for that matter ... and of course, _currently_.
Julian Lord
--__--__--
Powered by hypermail