Payload Website Template

We have had previous occasion^[1] to point out that the Western world has at its disposal no other sacred language than Hebrew, which is certainly quite a strange fact, and one that invites certain observations; for even if we cannot claim to resolve the diverse questions that arise on this subject, it is not devoid of interest. It is evident that if Hebrew can play this role in the West, it is because of the direct filiation that exists between the Judaic and Christian traditions and the incorporation of the Hebrew Scriptures into the sacred books of Christianity itself; but one may wonder how it happens that Christianity possesses no sacred language of its own, a truly exceptional fact that sets it apart from other traditions.

Here it is especially important not to confuse sacred languages with those that are simply liturgical:^[2] for a language to fulfill this latter role, it is enough that it be ‘fixed’, exempt from the continual variations that vernacular languages necessarily undergo,^[3] whereas sacred languages are exclusively those in which the scriptures of the different traditions are expressed. It is evident from this that every sacred language is at the same time, and with all the more reason, the liturgical or ritual language of the tradition to which it belongs,^[4] but the inverse is not true. Thus, Greek and Latin, along with certain other ancient languages,^[5] may perfectly well play the role of liturgical language for Christianity,^[6] but they are in no way sacred languages in themselves; even were we to suppose that they may once have had such a character,^[7] it would have been in traditions that are now lost and with which Christianity obviously has no affiliation.

The absence of a sacred language in Christianity becomes even more striking when we observe that the original text of the Hebrew Scriptures, which still exists, serves ‘officially’ only as a basis for the Greek and Latin translations.^[8] As for the New Testament, only the Greek text is known, and it is from this that all versions in other languages, even the Hebrew and the Syriac, were made; now it is surely impossible to maintain, at least with regard to the Gospels, that this is their true language—that is to say, the language in which Christ’s own words were spoken. Nevertheless it is possible that they were only written in Greek after having been previously transmitted orally in the original language;^[9] but one may then ask why, when they came to be fixed in writing, this could not just as well have been done in the original language, a question in fact difficult to answer. Whatever the reasons for this it all presents several difficulties, for only a sacred language can ensure the rigorous invariability of the scriptural texts since translations necessarily vary from one language to another, and are in any case never more than approximate since each language has its own modes of expression, which do not correspond exactly with those of any other.^[10] Even when the exterior and literal sense is rendered as clearly as possible, there are still many obstacles to penetrating into the other, deeper meanings.^[11] From this we can appreciate some of the special difficulties that the study of the Christian tradition presents to anyone who does not wish to restrict himself simply to more or less superficial appearances. Of course this is not at all to say that there are no reasons why Christianity has this exceptional characteristic of being a tradition without a sacred language; on the contrary, there certainly must be reasons; but we need to recognize that they are not at first apparent, and it would doubtless entail a very considerable labor—which we cannot think of undertaking here—to bring them to light. Moreover, almost everything touching upon the origins and earliest years of Christianity is unfortunately shrouded in obscurity. We might also ask if there is not a connection between this characteristic and another that is hardly less singular: that Christianity possesses no equivalent to the properly ‘legal’ aspect of other traditions, so much so that to supply one it was forced to adapt ancient Roman law for its own use, making additions which, though proper to it, are nonetheless not based on the Gospels.^[12] If on the one hand we bring these two facts together, and if on the other we bear in mind that, as we have frequently pointed out, certain Christian rites seem in some degree to be ‘exteriorizations’ of initiatic rites, we could even ask whether the original Christianity was not in reality something very different from what it seems to be at present—if not in respect of the doctrine itself,^[13] at least as to the ends in view of which it was established.^[14] For our part, our only wish has been to pose these questions, to which we certainly do not attempt to offer an answer; but given their obvious interest in more than one connection, it is much to be hoped that those with the time and means for the necessary research may one day throw some light on the subject.

Footnotes

[1]‘The Roots of Plants’, Symbols of Sacred Science (first published in English as Fundamental Symbols: The Universal Language of Sacred Science), chap. 62.

[2]This is all the more important in that we have seen an orientalist qualify Arabic as a ‘liturgical language’, whereas it is really a sacred language, apparently with the hidden intention (clear enough to anyone with understanding) of disparaging the Islamic tradition; and this is not unrelated to the fact that this same orientalist has conducted a veritable campaign for the adoption of Latin script in Arabic-speaking countries.

[3]We prefer to say ‘fixed’ language rather than the more customary ‘dead’ language because, from the traditional point of view, as long as a language is used in rituals, one cannot say that it is really dead.

[4]We say ‘liturgical or ritual’ because the first of these two words strictly applies only to religious forms, whereas the second has an altogether general significance that is applicable equally to all traditions.

[5]Notably Syrian, Coptic, and Old Slavonic, currently in use in various Eastern Churches.

[6]It should be clear that we have in mind only the regular and orthodox branches of Christianity; Protestantism in all its forms makes use only of vernacular languages and so has no liturgy strictly speaking.

[7]The fact that we know of no sacred books written in these languages does not entitle us to reject this supposition absolutely, for much from antiquity has certainly not survived. There are questions that would certainly be very difficult to resolve at present, for instance regarding the Roman tradition, the true character of the Sybilline Books, and the language in which they were written.

[8]The Septuagint and the Vulgate.

[9]This simple remark on the subject of oral transmission should suffice to nullify all the discussions of the ‘critics’ on the alleged dating of the Gospels, and this would be a sufficient refutation if the defenders of Christianity were not themselves more or less affected by the anti-traditional spirit of the modern world.

[10]This state of affairs is not unfavorable to the attacks of the modernist ‘exegetes’; even if texts in a sacred language existed, that would doubtless not prevent such ‘exegetes’ from discussing them in their profane way, but at least it would then be easier for all those who still retain something of the traditional spirit not to feel obliged to take their claims into account.

[11]This is particularly evident in sacred languages, where the characters have a numerical or properly hieroglyphic value that often has a great importance from this point of view, and of which an ordinary translation can obviously convey nothing.

[12]One could use a term borrowed from the Islamic tradition and say that Christianity has no shari‘ah. This is all the more remarkable because in what could be called the ‘Abrahamic’ filiation it is situated between Judaism and Islam, both of which on the contrary have a highly elaborated shari‘ah.

[13]Or perhaps we should rather say, of that part of the doctrine that has remained generally known up to our time; this has certainly not changed, but it is also possible that there may have been other teachings, for certain allusions made by the Church Fathers seem scarcely comprehensible otherwise. The efforts made by the moderns to minimize the significance of these allusions ultimately only prove the limitations of their own mentality.

[14]The study of these questions would also raise the question of links between primitive Christianity and the Essenes, about whom, moreover, very little is known, but it is at least established that they formed an esoteric organization attached to Judaism; many fanciful things have been said on this subject, but it is still a point meriting serious examination.

1 CONCERNING SACRED LANGUAGES

Footnotes