5 ms·

The use of Latin would do great damage to the European dream of unity. There's already a great distance between those who (are suppose to) represent the Europea

The use of Latin would do great damage to the European dream of unity. There's already a great distance between those who (are suppose to) represent the European population and the European citizens themselves. If they started using their own language it'd be like the old days where one could only come close to god via the church because the bible was written in Latin, a language only the men of the church understood. Controlling the language meant great power (as Martin Luther found out when he translated the bible so common man could read it).

wolfgke 13y ago
The bible wasn't originally written in Latin. The Old Testament is mostly written in Classical Hebrew (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew#Classical_Hebrew http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew#Classical_Hebrew), except for large sections of the books of Daniel and Esra - these are written in Aramaic (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic) The New Testament is originally written in Koine Greek (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Greek#Biblical_Koine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Greek#Biblical_Koine). The Latin versions are just old translations.
- VLM 13y ago
  The historical social relevance was most of the German peasantry couldn't read or listen to Aramaic at that time. Most of them couldn't understand written German but the stats for literacy were good enough that they'd understand someone reading it aloud. Its also relevant because of lack of control and a rather concrete expression of rebellion. "We forbid you to do this" "Been there done that". Rabble rousing always happens and never amounted to much; publishing an illegal book was a substantial escalation.
- fhars 13y ago
  But in the western (roman catholic) parts of europe, the latin vulgata was about the only relevant version of the bible during most of the middle ages. So for practical purposes, the argument is correct.

wolfgke 13y ago

The bible wasn't originally written in Latin. The Old Testament is mostly written in Classical Hebrew (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew#Classical_Hebrew http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew#Classical_Hebrew), except for large sections of the books of Daniel and Esra - these are written in Aramaic (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic) The New Testament is originally written in Koine Greek (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Greek#Biblical_Koine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Greek#Biblical_Koine). The Latin versions are just old translations.

VLM 13y ago
The historical social relevance was most of the German peasantry couldn't read or listen to Aramaic at that time. Most of them couldn't understand written German but the stats for literacy were good enough that they'd understand someone reading it aloud. Its also relevant because of lack of control and a rather concrete expression of rebellion. "We forbid you to do this" "Been there done that". Rabble rousing always happens and never amounted to much; publishing an illegal book was a substantial escalation.
fhars 13y ago
But in the western (roman catholic) parts of europe, the latin vulgata was about the only relevant version of the bible during most of the middle ages. So for practical purposes, the argument is correct.