Why Latin, Pars Quattuor: Civilization

Last night at dinner (I'm at NCHE) the question of why one ought to study Latin came up. Since it was dinner conversation and not a workshop, topics came and went, some unfinished, some barely started. In this case, a young man named Mark offered a good reason for Latin study. He said that his family values languages like French and Spanish, so they study a bit of Latin to help them learn those languages, and he asked if that is why people study it. I opined that, indeed, this would be a benefit (from the Latin "done well") of studying Latin. But I added that things also have a purpose that goes beyond the benefits they provide us. I suggested that when we do things for the benefits but ignore the purpose, eventually, the purpose being lost, the benefits go with it. Compare this with, for example, a college. It offers a number of practical benefits to students, such as finding a spouse, extending your high school sports career, being trained for a job, finding yourself, etc. But the day a college sees itself as existing for any of these reasons, it has sealed its own doom. It might well supernova, the way an economy typically expands rapidly before going into depression, but having lost sight of its purpose and nature, it will disintegrate. For an illustration, look at the college or University closest to you. So it is with every gift God gives us. His gifts include an implied stewardship because they are given with purpose and because they are good, much like giving a child a puppy or a toy places a duty of stewardship on the child. There are many benefits to Latin study. Learning other Romance languages is among them. You can probably come up with many more. I've heard of these, by way of example:
  • Build a vocabulary
  • Learn your own grammar
  • Prepare for medical studies
  • Prepare for legal studies
  • Get and be able to tell clever jokes*
  • Improve SAT scores
  • Get into a better college
  • Discipline the mind
  • Think better
  • Get the foundational vocabulary for a number of other studies, including history, theology, philosophy, plumbing, etc.
Perhaps you can think of more. I would even accept all of these as valid reasons for an individual to study language, just as I would accept going to college to find a spouse or play football as valid reasons for an individual to go to college. That is between the person and His God. But if a school or home school teaches Latin for these reasons, it will fall short of what it could achieve and it will not (and probably should not) last - unless the student comes to discover higher reasons. Why study Latin, then? Why, to learn it, of course. As absurd an answer as that sounds, it's important to remember. If your goal isn't to learn Latin, then you almost certainly won't. Or maybe I should say, if your goal is not to teach Latin then you almost certainly won't. So the question then becomes, "Why would I want to learn/teach latin?" Not meaning to provoke you, I still need to clarify something before answering the question. What do I mean when I say "learn Latin" or "teach Latin." Do I mean that everybody is morally bound to learn Latin? Certainly not. Do I mean that every school is morally bound to teach Latin? Probably not. Probably every American school, but not every school in every time and every place. Only schools that want to "educate" their students, as opposed to "training" them, should teach Latin. But I'm not sure how you can be an educated person in the 21st century if you can't access the documents that make up over 60% of what makes us who we are. If you value the western tradition, including the classical, medieval, Renaissance, Enlightenment, and even Romantic heritage, what you value can't be sustained without a lot of people knowing Latin well enough to communicate and think in Latin. To the Christian, this is particularly relevant. You don't have to be a Roman Catholic to have an unbearable weight of debt to those who communicated in the Latin language.
  • Luther's 95 theses? Latin
  • Calvin's Institutes? Latin first, unless I am mistaken. Then French.
  • Correspondance among reformers and with the Roman church? Latin
  • St. Augustine? Latin
  • Apostolic fathers? Latin or Greek
  • Most church music? Latin
Until the 1880's, most high school students in America studied Greek, Latin, and math. When they graduated, they went on to college to prepare for law, politics, or the ministry. In the 1880's, industrialists started developing a new form of college, designed to sustain the sort of world they could understand and dominate. Many of them were convinced the classical tradition wasn't needed for such a world. As a result, colleges stopped requiring Greek and Latin as entrance requirements (yes, entrance requirements). What do you suppose happened next? Exactly. Since you could get into a college without Latin and Greek, high schools stopped teaching Latin and Greek. Consequently, those colleges that did still value the classical heritage were put on the defensive and were compelled to defend themselves in the courts of the pragmatists. Even they seemed to fail to grasp that a "worldview" shift had occurred. The "market" gradually came to dominate education, which is another way of saying "appearances and appetites" or even "even and strife" came to dominate education. Now think about this. If you are a high school graduate, and you are choosing a college, does the education you have received so far affect the vocations you might consider? Let's say, for example, that you have never picked up a basketball. Are you likely to think you might want to become an NBA player? Now what if you have never studied Latin? What options are closed or at least more intimidating to you? How would you regard the ministry? Today it probably wouldn't have any impact on your thinking. If you can lead a devotional, manage a congregation, and practice some counseling you can be a pastor. In the 1880's you were expected to know theology too. It was understood that to know theology you would need to know the languages of theology, so to get into a seminary you had to know Latin and Greek. But students were graduating from high school not knowing Latin and Greek, so if they were interested in theology they would have to go to college to learn grammar. The barrier of time and expense was formidable, so the ministry began an immediate decline and many would argue that the decline continues. More and more, the ministry has become the domain of management, marketing, and therapy. Not many Americans know the difference between an Orthodox and a heterodox doctrine and not many care. That happened because schools stopped teaching Latin and Greek. Read that again. Schools stopped teaching Latin and Greek because a paradigm shift had taken place, where the Christian classical understanding of truth and nature and purpose were replaced with a naturalistic perception in which truth is relative, nature is fungible, and purpose is, as Spinoza once wrote, "the hobgoblin of superstitious minds." It's not that everybody needs to learn Latin and Greek. Only those who will engage in politics, law, theology, medicine, entertainment, philosophy, education, natural science, ethics, and the learned professions. Not every society needs to be permeated by people who know Latin and Greek, only those that love freedom and truth. I have no idea if Latin and Greek are innately superior to other languages. I only know that they are the languages in which people thought about the things listed above for over 2000 years. To lose that heritage is to become impoverished, homeless, and destitute.
Enhanced by Zemanta
Andrew  Kern

Andrew Kern

Andrew Kern is the founder and president of The CiRCE Institute and the co-author of the book,  Classical Education: the Movement Sweeping America

I don't know. Some of them aren't called to it, so they don't need to do it. But some would benefit enormously who simply don't realize its value.

Civilized life is always the result of faith in the tradition passed on by the elders. If young people and their parents think that only the values they can see right now are values worth seeking, there's little hope. But be cautious. Most people who aren't interested aren't lazy or barbaric, they just don't see it. That defines your task. Don't convince them: show them. God bless you as you figure out how.

I too would give my left arm (even if it hurt a little) to be able to read in the original text, but how do I convince my students (and most of the parents) that they should tackle Latin in an attempt to learn it?

Why can't we just read translations of all these things?

Angela,

Translations by whom?

This is the best explanation of why to study latin that I have come across. I studied Greek in college (Gutenberg College) with a mind toward ministry. Latin seemed like an overachiever's language that was for showing off - and yes, had several practical benefits like those you mentioned or might be helpful if you were catholic. All that said, you have won me over. I am now homeschooling and have been on the fence about latin. My eldest is only 6, but I am going to take the steps now to make sure we do include Latin when the time comes. Thank you!

You know my weakness, call it agrarian and I'll buy it! Another question or two... is the reference to the making of books having no end and much study wearying the body, in Ecclesiastes, an argument against a classical education (or, in particular, learning Latin)? It definately takes time.... I don't know quite how to phrase the question I really want to ask. I have heard it suggested that the time spent in learning Latin (or striving to read much in the classics) is a waste of time because one should be more involved in "ministry" or "outreach". If I have to make a choice between doing justice to a real effort to learn Latin and being involved in the multitude of "ministry oportunities", am I being selfish to choose Latin? Can you address that thought?

The Ecclesiastes verse is an argument against the pointless education that can often stand in for classical but is the common state of conventional education. Do not trust in books to save you!!

Christian classical education as I understand it is the only education that respects that verse and seeks truth instead of the lesser alternatives.

AS to the question of whether you should study Latin or serve, this is easy. If Latin does not help you serve others, worship God, or otherwise prepare you to hear Him say "well done" you should not go near it. If love of God and neighbor don't motivate the study of Latin, it is an evil.

Anthony Esolen, of course, in anything that he has translated. And, well, whoever you recomend, because you took the time to learn Latin and have the discernment to know such things. Seriously, is reading a translation that far from reading the real thing that we will lose our heritage if that is all the further we go? Or maybe once we become satisfied with a translation, the danger is that it just one short step to not reading classics at all? Or do we need to know Latin to know a good translation from a poor one?

Whose translation should the next generation read?

i'm kind of giving you a hard time, but at the same time, it's an important question. I don't believe that everybody needs to learn Latin, only that our culture be permeated with people who know Latin.

My knowledge of Latin is rather feeble. I can read the gospel of John in the vulgate as long as I have a dictionary nearby, and i'll need it about once/verse. In the gospel of Luke or Paul's epistles I need a lot more help.

But I could not have known that if I were reading a translation. You notice all kinds of things in the original that you can't notice when you read a translation. In fact, when I was a kid my church was very committed to exegesis of the Bible, and I found that preacher's were constantly talking about the original Greek and what it actually said.

Every translation has errors and every translation comes from the perspective of the translator. When it comes to scripture, what one person could possible enter into the minds of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, and Jude and get the nuances of what they are saying? That's why the Bible is almost always translated by committees, but which of them has the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that the apostles knew they had?

An example that is particularly bothersome to me (and to church history) is the mistranslation of I Cor 3 and 15. In chapter 3 the original says, the "psychicon" cannot see the things of God, but the "pneumatichos" can. In most translations it says, "the natural man cannot see the things of God, but the spiritual man can."

In fact, whole spiritual systemic errors have been derived from this regrettable translation, which made sense in its day. Psuchicon does not mean "natural" man, it means "soulish" person. It refers to the "energy source" by which this man lives, and it is the energy of his own soul. On the other hand, there is the man who lives by the energy of the Spirit. I can understand why they called it the natural man, but it is not what the word means.

We must live by the truth-giving energy of the Holy Spirit if we want to know the wisdom that comes from God. However, this energy is completely devoid of envy, strife, and division. Soulish energy, on the other hand, is completely full of envy, strife, and division.

Is this soulish man the "natural man"? That raises all kinds of problems. It implies that there is something wrong with nature. And a lot of people would argue that there is, including me. But we have to be careful what we mean. Our nature is fallen, ruined, broken, diseased, incomprehensibly disordered. It is in a state of utter disrepair. But its essence remains good.

That is to say, human nature cannot be necessarily evil for two reasons: one, then Jesus, who took on human nature, would also be evil, and two, then we would have to become something other than human when we are glorified in Christ.

Which takes us to I Cor 15, where it says that our body is "sown a natural body and it is raised a spiritual." Same words in the original. it is not sown a "natural" body, it is sown a soulish body. And it raised a spiritual body. This is huge. It is still a physical body that will be raised. But that physical body will be a spiritual body.

This confuses many modern Christians because they have put spiritual and physical in conflict, which is a completely unBiblical idea and has opened a million doors to errors like new age teachings and other gnostic leaning heresies.

Just as the physical is not in conflict with the spiritual, so the natural is not in an essential conflict with the spiritual. For us, in our fallen state, we often put the physical and/or the natural in conflict with the spiritual, but it is like the conflict between a rebellious child and an honorable father. The problem is not permanent and essential, but utterly and completely unnecessary. When the child submits, the relationship is healed. So it is with the body, the soul, and the spirit. When the body submits to the rule of the spirit, we are healed.

We do like to indulge our bodies, though, don't we?

When you read a translation, whether it be of the Bible or of Homer or of Virgil, you are being led by the translator to understand the text the way he did and even to understand it within the context in which he translated it. An original work of art always has radiations of light that the translator can only capture with his little mirror.

I've found this with Virgil too. One time I was reading the Aeneid and I saw him use some turn of phrase in book two that he also used in book six in the Latin. And while I can't argue this in a scholarly way and anybody who wants to can dismiss this point because I don't remember the detail any more, I was struck at the time by the idea that when Aeneas entered the underworld Virgil used a phrase that he only used one other time that I could find. If I remember correctly the other time was when he went down to Carthage or to see Dido or something. It was clear from the form that Virgil was linking the two events.

But I didn't see that link made in any translation. Now it may be that I was wrong. But I could not even have made the mistake if I weren't wrestling feebly with the original text.

Let me simplify: Imagine trying to translate Shakespeare into German.

I am fine with translations and I read them all the time. However, I would give my left arm to not need them (as long as it didn't hurt).

Finally, yes, if we want to judge the quality of a translation, the only way to do so is to know the original. Otherwise, our judgment boils down to whether we personally like the translators style or maybe we can evaluate it based on his linguistic philosophy. But we can't be sure of any opinion unless we can compare the copy to the original.

Oh, one more thing: there is a pleasure in reading the original that cannot possibly be experienced in translation. Translation has its own pleasures and they are great. But they cannot match the intellectual (for lack of a better word) thrill of reading the original.

thanks for asking good questions. I hope this long, wandering answer doesn't leave the plantation of your thoughts.

Angela,

No, I don't think so. I approach it more like an agrarian activity or even church life. If only 50% of us farm or even 35%, we can still all eat well. So it is with Latin. If 50% or 35% or 20% of our culture learned Latin well, all of us would benefit from it. There thoughts would be better expressed and deeper than most of the rest of us and that would enrich us all.

I myself don't know Latin all that well and there was a time when I knew it even less. But in those days I benefited enormously from reading people like Shakespeare (whose little Latin and less Greek was not all that bad), Chaucer, Dante, Augustine, Durant, and others whom I had no knowledge of.

The Christian classical tradition is a wide and beautiful river with marvelous water. As long as we continue to renew it, everybody will benefit. If anybody is not called to an immersion in that river, he should at least not keep his neighbor out. And if any body is called to an immersion, he should not throw his neighbor in.

We all have something essential to contribute.

Thanks Kim, for your research on translations.

Wow, I said all that and missed the point. The point is that if you're reading the KJV, you are reading Tyndale, which is based on Erasmus' 12th century Greek manuscripts. If you learn to read the Vulgate you are reading a Catholic translation based on earlier Greek manuscripts. The best answer, in my opinion, is to learn to read Greek if you want to read what the apostles wrote. But learn Latin and read the Vulgate if you want to read what most of the educated world has read. Is that right, Andrew?

"A little learning is a dangerous thing." —Pope

I mean if you are reading the KJV 1611, you are reading Tyndale and the Textus Receptus. The later KJV revisions, 1861, 1932, 1962, are based on a different set of manuscripts. I'll be quiet now, this is about why to learn Latin, not Greek :)

Angela,

Here’s how I understand it:

Pope Damascus (366-384) commissioned Jerome to translate the Greek manuscripts into the Vulgate, and in the late fourth century Jerome completed it. Vulgate comes from the Latin word, “vugare” and refers to the common speech of the people.

Tyndale (1526/34) was the first to translate the entire NT into English based on Erasmus’ compilation of six Greek manuscripts, all dating back from the twelfth century and later. These six texts are know as “Texus Receptus.”

(although Wycilffe translated the Bible into English from the Vulgate in 1382)

After Tyndale, a colleague of Tyndale’s, Coverdale, based a translation on Tyndale’s, and then John Rogers, another colleague of Tyndale’s, created another translation based on Tyndale’s. This became known as Matthew’s Bible.

Then, the “Great Bible” was commissioned and is a revision of the Matthew’s Bible.

Then, in 1568 the Bishop’s Bible was created and is a revision of the Great Bible.

Then, in 1611, over 50 scholars worked to create the KJV, which is a revision Bishop’s Bible.

Why all this information?

It’s interesting that the KJV is a revision the Bishop’s Bible, which is based on the Great Bible, which is a revision of Matthew’s Bible, which is based on Tyndale’s version, which is based on the “Textus Receptus”, Erasmus’s compilation.

Much of the New Testament in the 1611 Authorized Version (KJV) came directly from Tyndale. I think the number is 80%. Eighty percent of the KJV is the same as Tyndale. But that sounds like an awful lot. I need to check my numbers.

Some of my favorite Tyndale phrases that we find in the KJV are these:

“And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes”
“Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you”
“With God all things are possible”
“In him we live and move and have our being”
“The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak”
“Let brotherly love continue”

Kim

If a small minority of us learn Latin , won't we still become destitute and impoverished anyway, because of the rest of our society?

I was just wondering if "correspondance" (Correspondance among reformers and with the Roman church? Latin) is something different than "correspondence"? Does it have to do with relating to something and the other writing letters/exchanging communications? Just wondering.

Nope, just a typo. Though the distinction is pregnant.

Please excuse my ignorance, but isn't the vulgate a translation?

Yes, it is, but the psuchicon discussion is from the Greek, not the Latin.

Thank you. Though your answer makes my stumbling in the dark question seem pretty foolish, I think I understand more clearly how it should fit together. A classical education, properly approached, should equip us to better serve both God and our neighbor?

Yes, absolutely: it must equip us to serve God and neighbor, and also to love and appreciate them.

Your question was not foolish at all. It was the most important question you can ask, or close to it. We all need to ask that question constantly about everything we do. If we can't justify our actions against the standards that Christ laid down, then we should not justify them at all!

I appreciate your reflections and questions immensely and only wish I could respond more quickly and wisely.

This might help clear up what I am getting at better for you.

Pal's Pen: Doing the Opposite (Part 1)
*IC Denotes Institutional Church

If you want to "do church" the way God intended the first thing we need to do is look at how not to do it. The best place to see this comes by looking at the IC. After all, in looking at the culture there is little evidence the IC has had much of an impact. Therefore, let's pick it apart, and then do the opposite. Understand that taking on the IC in its present state, and/or leading people out, and back to the best new/old thing God is at work doing through organic Christianity will meet resistance. Prepare to be criticized, ostracized, and even persecuted. It goes with the territory when you become part of a true revolution.

Let's look at the IC, and its opposite. We'll simply bullet it in Part 1, and then dissect it further in Part 2 later to come.
1. The IC is top down.
>>> The Opposite: Go bottoms up.
2. The IC sits people in a row of noses in static, staid environments looking into the back of a stranger's head turning the church into a spectator sport of sorts.
>>> The Opposite: Gather in personable small groups, and circle up face to face.
3. The IC's environment makes it difficult to become truly transparent, confess sin, share deep burdens, and one another one another.
>>> The Opposite: Provide an environment that is warm, open, and transparent. The place is not as much an issue as making certain wherever the place is provides an easy environment to become transparent with one another. That said, home environments typically provide the best environment for this.
4. The IC has the same people leading week after week ad nausea, and is dominated and controlled by a professional clergy class.
>>> The Opposite: In organic Christianity everyone is given the same freedom to grow, develop, and lead. This helps people to get out of their comfort zone. They're is no professional clergy class dominating the scene.
5. The IC spends vast resources on church edifices that remain empty the vast majority of the time. Typically they are empty 164 hours a week. ($230,000,000,000 {BILLION} has been spent on these edifices in America alone.)
>>> The Opposite: In organic Christianity meeting primarily in the home, and growing from home to home resources are not wasted on unnecessary facilities. Financial resources are managed better, and waste is minimal.
6. The IC uses very questionable, legalistic practices, including illicit, feel good prosperity teaching, as well as high pressure tactics to raise money for unnecessary things such as the church edifices just mentioned.
>>> The Opposite: Lead people to give as they listen carefully to the Holy Spirit to give. Give from a heart led by grace. Give freely with no strings attached expecting to receive nothing more than the joy that comes from giving freely, and sacrificially.
7. The IC is spilt over doctrines that carry no transformational power. They become clubs of sort, even like fraternities or sororities in a college Greek system. One denomination thinks its better than another by virtue of their differing doctrines, attire, music, and or rules they are led by. There are now close to 40,000 denominations coming as a result of these splits.
>>> The Opposite: Live by John 17:21 leading us to unity under doctrines that cause us to govern as Pascal exhorted, "In non-essentials, liberty. In essentials, unity. In all things, love."
8. The IC centers its resources around a half hour lecture that most forget before they get home. It carries little, or no lasting impact.
>>> The Opposite: Circle up face to face, and allow interactive conversation, the freedom to interject, ask questions, challenge one another, and be radical. (The root meaning of radical means to get to the root of the truth.) This kind of fellowship carries long lasting remembrance of what occurred, and leaves a lasting impact on our lives.
9. The IC is centralized through a command center with one or a few calling all the shots, and controlling everything that happens in large crowd environments.
>>> The Opposite: Decentralize into small groups that can multiply. Allow the Holy Spirit to lead you freely, and spontaneously. Do not allow one person to control, be at the top, or calls all the shots. Give liberty and freedom to all to be creative in how the church grows and develops.
10. The IC's church service is more of a Simon Says, highly controlled, contrived, professionalized meeting and lecture governed by tight time constraints with the same man speaking week after week. This stifles the Holy Spirit's need to move freely and empower everyone in the church.
>>> The Opposite: Listening to the Holy Spirit is the key element for the church to grow as God intended. Do so for as Christ said, "I leave you the Holy Spirit to be your comfort and your guide."

For more of "Growing Home" click here: http://www.ylifeonline.org/ggmna.htm l

Andrew, I simply look at the debauchery that now permeates our culture. It smacks of Sodom and Gomorrah. Where's the impact of the church? I see little evidence of it. The early church, as under sourced, illiterate, and poor as it was, was transforming the culture, and bringing Rome to its knees. Then, it got pulled out of the home, and placed in staid, static control centers. We owe this to Constantine.

Today, the church (traditional church - institutional church), that has abundant resources, ($230 Billion in church edifices in America alone - that sit empty on average 164 hours a week), is led by a Simon Says performance based "church service". Individual priesthood is something the church at large has little knowledge of, and certainly little understanding of how to take hold it -- because it has been stripped away by the professional clergy class. This stifles and oppresses the church. I don't think by intention as much as by the way they are trained to erroneously think what the church is, and how it is to truly function.

John 17:21 has been emasculated by Sunday pulpiteers bent on developing man made traditions and doctrines that serve little purpose except to divide. There are now over forty thousand different denominations as a result. The disunity is absolute insanity.

Fortunately, the church is now experiencing a true revolution. 1 million people a year are now leaving the traditional church in the West, and going back home to build it there. You, being a proponent of home schooling, would find the books on the home page of my web site interesting, compelling reads. I'd start with 'Pagan Christianity', by Frank Viola, and 'Rabbit and Elephants', by Felicity Dale.

Didn't mean to stray from the topic at hand as I have, but did want to respond to your comments.

web site: www.ylifeonline.org -- You'll see the books I mentioned down the page.

Why do you say the church doesn't influence our culture? Madison Avenue bases a lot of what it does on church marketing strategies. I read or heard somewhere that Billy Graham is one of their models. Also, the thought patterns of our culture were influenced significantly by the Puritans of the 17th and 18th centuries. I think the "church", whatever you might mean by that, has had, and continues to have, a profound impact on our culture.

This is all interesting stuff, and great food for thought. Yet, it seems from the church history I've researched the church has lost its influence on the culture not by lack of education, or they're understanding Latin, but by lack of empowerment. The early church was a decentralized organism not a centralized control center. It grew reproducing from home to home freely and spontaneously. Interestingly, it was also vastly illiterate and poor.

Throughout history those that have stood outside the "organized" church, primarily the RCC, (although Protestantism seems to be little more than a retrofit of the RCC despite claims of a "reformation"), have met cruel and unjust treatment. This included the heinous inquisition, execution of the Anabaptists, etc. Today, of course we have the pedophilia in the RCC that is out of control. If this "education" is typical of its end result then it serves to only bring out the worst in all of us.

Top down church structures like the RCC, and the overall institutional church that place power into the hands of the few seem to always give birth to the Tyranny of the Status Quo. As Ronald Reagan once said, "Status Quo. You know, that's Latin for the mess we're in." I like his translation.

Tradition can be a good thing, but we are warned in scripture not to be tied to the traditions of man - which the RCC, and all of its derivatives - including tProtestants seem tied to.

Fortunately, there is a growing movement away from top down, centralized church systems to bottoms up, organic church life that grows primarily in, and out of the home. Where people don't sit in a row of noses looking into the back of stranger's head listening to a 30 minute lecture week after week ad nausea by the same man. A lecture forgotten before the cattle call has ended, and all leave to go home.

Scripture also notes that knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. The early church had something that no amount of education can teach. They were overtaken by the love of Christ. They were transparent with one another, confessed their sin to one another, were devoted to one another, sacrificially gave to one another, and in general 'one anothered one another.'

No argument can stand against the benefits Latin can have on the professions mentioned in prior comments. That's a given. However, keeping it simple, and growing organically seems to be the best anecdote for a church that long ago lost its ability to impact and transform the culture. If we could re-educate each other of that simple truth we might again recapture what the early church had before it was prostituted by Emperor Constantine as a marketing tool for the continued domination and control of the Roman Empire.

For more on Constantine the Con Man go here: http://www.ylifeonline.org/flimflamex.html

This is fantastic! I recently wrote a post about why I'm studying Latin (and teaching my children), but you've given me even more reasons. :)
http://intoxicatedonlife.com/2012/06/18/7-reasons-why-im-learning-latin-...