Ken is now two weeks into a study of what is for me a fascinating topic–the doctrine of the Word of God. This week focused specifically on the background of how the Word has come to us through the centuries.
I know I’m a bit of a nerd when it comes to this stuff, but I find it to be exciting because it brings together a number interesting concepts and areas. We have philosophy, science, and history all working under the umbrella of God’s providence to bring the revelation of Himself to His creation. It’s often a much messier business than I would prefer it to be, but the most important things in life rarely come in neat, tidy packages.
Anyway, one of the subjects Ken touched on was that of the languages in use when the Scriptures were written. If you find this topic at all interesting, then I have a resource for you. In the BiblicalTraining.org Church History I class, Dr. Gerald Bray
does a thorough job of acquainting the listener with the ancient world in which the New Testament is set. One area that he covers very well is the role that the four major Biblical first century languages played: Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin.
This is just one of the many topics Dr. Bray covers on this journey from Jesus’ day through the middle ages. There is a good bit on the development of the Church in the first several centuries with issues like the rivalry between East and West, the various councils, the heretical movements, and so on. This course seems to have been developed before the publishing of the Da Vinci Code, but it really helps to show what really happened.
Eric, I don’t really have the time right now to listen to this class, but of course, I am interested. I just took a course on the historical development on the NT canon.
For clarification, could you explain how Latin is a biblical language?
Latin was a language in use in the Roman Empire in the time that Jesus was on the scene. It was spoken primarily by the Roman military and officials. It might not have made it into the Scriptures, but was in the mix for that time in history. That’s the only reason, I included it in the list.
As an aside, I found it interesting that Gibson chose to have the dialog of “The Passion of the Christ” in Latin. It seemed like an odd choice. Maybe it was just for convenience.
Actually, The Passion was primarily in Aramaic.
There were bits of Latin thrown in when Romans were involved – most poignantly when Christ met privately with Pilate.
I could be wrong, but I think Pilate asked Jesus a question in Aramaic, and Jesus answered in Latin. Not sure…
That is a good reason Eric, but recall that Latin was the only language most people had the Bible in from about AD 400-1530. This makes Latin even more influential on the history of Scripture.
I’m willing to bet that this was what prompted Jason’s question in the first place. That adding Latin to the list might be a confusion between the early translations with the originals in the other three languages. Am I right?
I stand corrected on The Passion. I’m not sure where I picked up the idea that the primary dialog was in Latin.
I am a little confused. Latin was hardly “influential” at the time of the NT. Is it really worth mentioning? I don’t know.
Jeffery, at the time that Jesus was Incarnate, the world was a Greek speaking world-not Latin. The church fathers wrote in Greek well into the 5th century. Most people had the Bible in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT-which the apostles themselves used) and then in the original epistles and their copies- all of which were Greek. Latin’s influence on Christianity came much later and primarily through the Catholic church who sought to take the Bible out of the hands of the people by translating it into the language of the cleargy; Latin- a language that the common poeple did not speak.
Yes Eric, I was confused by the addition of Latin to the list of Biblical languages. A Biblical language usually refers to the languages in which the Bible was written. Also, there is a theological problem with saying that another language was spoken than that which we believe was recorded by the gospel writers under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If we accept such a view, it could radically change our doctrine of inspiration.
In your thinking, what kind of “influence” did Latin have on the NT?
More to the point of what prompted my question is concern because there is very little (one book that I can think of) work done by conservatives on this historical development of the NT canon. Most of the work has been done by critics. Therefore, there is a lot of bad theories out there in this area of church history.
I don’t think anybody’s making the case that Latin figures prominently in issues of canonicity… there’s plenty to work with in the original languages.
That said, I think Latin is certainly relevant in the context of Ken’s class on the Doctrine of the Word of God — it seems worthwhile to understand how and why we have the Scriptures we have. Inasmuch as Latin figures into that story, we would do well to consider it.
OK, Jason, I don’t really understand your beef, but I’ve changed my original sentence from “biblical languages” to “first century languages.”
No “beef.” There is a difference between the British view of inerrancy and that of American conservative Evangelicals.
Hey, I finally caught up to you guys on the Latin information. Sorry, I guess this is yet another example of me opening my mouth (or typing) before I know what I am talking about. I am working on this serious sin issue. Sorry.