Difficult Latin Phrases in the Vulgate

[Linusthe2nd]

Oh yes, I worded that poorly. I should have said, as you would always expect in that type of a counterfactual or hypothetical clause. An indicative would only be called for if the sense were something like “unless it has been thrown outside.”

You were right in the sense that " ut " should make you alert, because it does call for the Subjunctive often enough. I’m still thinking about it. If you go through all the different classes of clauses covered by either Bennett or Grammatica which call for the subjunctive ( and in the example, the present subjunctive), there doesn’t seem to be one that fits. But the example, by its nature as a hypothetical conclusion, clearly calls for the Subjunctive. Perhaps the example is outside the usual class of " rules " and must be determined by the " nature of the case ." Rules always have exceptions and this may be one. It certainly appears so. If that is the case. then it is not " nisi " or " ut " or " nisi ut " which determines the Subjunctive and the Present of the Subjunctive besides, but the nature of the case, which, I guess, is determined by the writer.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Psalms 21:2
Vulgate: " Deus Deus meus respice me quare me dereliquisti longe a salute me verba delictorum meorum."

Psalms 22:2
Nova Vulgata: " Deus Deus meus, quare me dereliqusti? Longe a salute me verba rugitus mei."

I found the difference in the two passages interesting and neither one made much sense to me and " rugitus " in the passage from the N.V. seemed singularly inappropriate. I just couldn’t imagine Christ " roaring, " even on the cross. And in the first passage from the Vulgate, what in the world did " …the words of my sins…" mean and how on earth could it be applied to Christ at any time?

Fr. Haydock in Douay Rheims has an excellent commentary on this passage. If you don’t have it, you can go to www.veritasbible.com and read it. Too long to go into here. You can also go to Biblos.com and read a number of really excellent commentaries. BibliusClarus didn’t have anything.

So, which one is correct? No one knows and we may never know. But I think the translation in my Confraternity of the Prescious Blood copy of the Psalms reads the passage the way I like to think about it. It reads : " My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me? thou art far from the prayers, from the words of my cry."

I will never be happy with " rugitus. " Although Psalm 38(37)9 (N.V.) uses the phrase “,rugibam a gemitu…” If " rugitus " is supposed to mean " groaning " in 22:2 then why wasn’t it used? I guess we will never know. But at least we can see that not every passage of scripture is inspired in the strict sense. Or perhaps the Holy Spirit provides us with choices in certain verses so that He may speak one thing to one person and something else to another to suit circumstances or personalities or something.

as the p

 

[MarkThompson]

I looked at the Haydock, but he just says without much elaboration, “Sins. That is, the sins of the world, … . Heb. ‘roaring.’” Not much of an explanation there. Now according to Barnes’ Notes, “The word used here properly denotes the roaring of a lion, Job 4:10; Isaiah 5:29; Zechariah 11:3; and then the outcry or the groaning of a person in great pain, Job 3:24; Psalm 32:3. It refers here to a loud cry for help or deliverance, and is descriptive of the intense suffering of the Redeemer on the cross. Compare Matthew 27:50; Luke 23:46.”

So where “sins” comes from or what the basis for that reading is, I couldn’t say, but if the other sense is to be used, I would prefer that a translation give the actual sense of the original without providing a “dainty” substitute. Rugitus means a bellow or roar, and if that’s what the Hebrew says, then that’s what the Latin ought to say as well, I should think.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That is pretty much what I found at Biblos.com. Bibliaclarus didn’t have anything. Too bad we don’t have Jerome’s original translation and notes. For a literal translation you can’t beat Haydock’s edition of the Douay Rhiems ( text is that of Challoner), it is close enough to the original D.R. that it is a great help in " seeing " the Latin grammar. I wonder if the original Douay Rhiems is even closer. I have a copy I gave to my brother and he isn’t using it so I may be able to get it back one of these days. The difference between the two Vulgates is rather small. And while there are differences ( as above ) one can see that either is acceptible. And indeed many different translations have been used in the Churche’s prayers of the Mass and the Office, etc that I am convinced that the Holy Spirit allows ( encourages? ) different understandings at different times for different peoples and Churches. Since the Office has been allowed to be said in the vernacular ( at least for the faithful as opposed to religious) there have been at least several versions in the English. I’m no crazy about the vernacular rendering of the Psalms in the Precious Blood edition I have. The Benedictines used to have a better rendering ( my opinion) in the short daily office for Oblates. So, at least for the laity, different translations have been used with approbation.