Difficult Latin Phrases in the Vulgate

  • Thread starter Thread starter Linusthe2nd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Linusthe2nd

Guest
The phrase " …in idipsum…" or at least " idipsum " occurs around a dozen times in the Vulgate of the Old and New Testament. I found that even St Augustaine was unsure what it meant or was doubtful. Be that as it may, it pleased the Latin translators to continue using the phrase. Not exactly the kind of thing that would be approved of by the Congregation of Divine Worship, not exactly what they had in mind when they issued the Fifth Instruction " For the Right Implementation of the Constitution of the Sacred Lituryg of Vatican 11 where they discuss the uses of the Vernacular in Chapter 11 ( pars. 20-45 esp.).

I found " …in idipsum…" in Psalms 34,4 ( N.V. edito typica Vaticana libra ). So it reads “…Magnificante Dominum mecum, et exaltemus nomen in idipsum…” It has been translated in the Haydock edition of the Douay Rheims as “…Magnify the Lord with me: let us extole his name together…” However, I am sure we are not dealing with an adverb here. I think we are dealing with an accusative phrase where the object is the conjunction of two pronouns in the accusative, singular, neuter, wherein the phrase should be treated appositively, modifying the accusative, singular, neuter " nomen." Then the phrase would translate "…Magnify the Lord with me: let us extole his name, that selfsame name ( or something like - ’ that very name itself ') " That would make just as much sense and would fit like a glove grammatically. What are your favorite Scriptual phrases, etc from the Latin Vulgate???
 
Nunn, An Introduction to Ecclesiastical Latin (1922), says, “In idipsum is used in the sense of together to translate επι το αυτο.” Sure enough, επι το αυτο is what appears here in the Septuagint.
 
Incidentally, Augustine was not “unsure what it meant” in the sense that he did not comprehend the Latin words. Rather, he was relating the word Idipsum to a very difficult and slippery concept, one which is not fully embraced by that word or any other.
 
P.S.: This makes at least the third time that you have criticized the Latin text as being confused or flat-out erroneous. Each time you have been extremely wrong. Maybe it would be better if you started phrasing your questions as “What am I missing about …” or “Can somebody explain to me what … means,” rather than “I have run across several grammatical errors.”
 
To be fair I didn’t say the Latin translation was wrong this time. But indeed, if you google the usages I have questioned, you will find there has been a long history of debate about the meaning of the usages I questioned. In fact scholars of the past have written books about one or the other or about a host of similar usages. Indeed the whole history of translating the Sacred Texts, at least as far back as St Jerome, has been that of a continual search for valid and true Texts and their translation. Thus there has been an historical debate which is ongoing to this day. All this implies that certain " errors " have creeped in due to carelessness or ignorance, etc in regard to the exact meaning of certain words or phrases. And of course the Congregation for Divine Worship of the Vatican is ultimately responsible for deciding on the best translations. But I approach the translations simply out of curiosity and a certain interest in the Latin Text and its translation. And it is always appreciated to run across others with similar interests.
 
In Mark 2: 10 ( NV ) we find: “…Videntes autem setllam gavisi sunt gaudio magno valde…”
Can anyone explain why the Indicative Perfect Passive is used ( gavisi sunt). It makes the literal translation awkward. The subject ( Magi ) were not being acted upon. Seems to me the Perfect Active would have been better. I’m just trying to understand the reason for the grammar here. Perhaps it is that this is an idiom in the Latin or the original language.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
In Mark 2: 10 ( NV ) we find: “…Videntes autem setllam gavisi sunt gaudio magno valde…”
Can anyone explain why the Indicative Perfect Passive is used ( gavisi sunt). It makes the literal translation awkward. The subject ( Magi ) were not being acted upon. Seems to me the Perfect Active would have been better. I’m just trying to understand the reason for the grammar here. Perhaps it is that this is an idiom in the Latin or the original language.
Click to expand...
That is that perfect active. It is passive in form because gaudeo is a semi-deponent. Gavisus sum = I rejoiced.
 
MarkThompson said:
That is that perfect active. It is passive in form because gaudeo is a semi-deponent. Gavisus sum = I rejoiced.
Click to expand...
Thank you Mark and right you are. I just found the answer in Adler’s grammar online here:

George Adler’s A Practical Grammar of the Latin Language with Perpetual Exercises for Speaking and Writing (online) (1858)

It was in Bennett also but I missed it there, he is pretty compact. Adler explained it very well.
 
And Jesus said love God with all your heart and mind. And love your neighbor as yourself.

Why debate about how many Angels can stand on the head of a pin?
 
rdscheirer said:
And Jesus said love God with all your heart and mind. And love your neighbor as yourself.

Why debate about how many Angels can stand on the head of a pin?
Click to expand...
With me personally it is a question about trying to understand the grammar of the Latin. You cannot hope to really understand the Latin without understanding the grammar. And the better you understand the grammar the better or more accurately you will be able to translate. And while it is true you can lay an English translation of the Clementine Bible next to the Latin text ( these are online ), you cannot do that if your Latin Bible happens to be the Nova Vulgata because there are many small and large differences between the Latin of the two texts and there is no English translation of the Nova Vulgata. Of course the English translation for the Clementine will be spot on most of the time but not always. And say you wanted to read the Summa Theologia in Latin. There are English-Latin translations side by side but the English rendering is pretty loose. Or say you wanted to read a Church document which has no English translation. In the latter case your grammar better be pretty good.
 
Ran into another log jam today. Mathew 1, the heading is as follows : " Liber generationis Jesu Christi filii David filii Abraham." Can’t figure out why " filii " in either instance is in the genitive singular. Can’t come up with a good grammar rule to fit. My suspision is that " ,filii David…" is in apposition to " Jesu Christi " and " filii Abraham " is in apposition to " filii David." The only other explanation I can think of is that words have been left out and the literal translation, way back a thousand years ago or so, may have been something like “…The generation of Jesus Christ of a son of David of a son of Abraham. It this case both instances of " filii” might work. and David and Abraham would be undeclinable but theoretically in the genitive singular also. Any ideas?
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Ran into another log jam today. Mathew 1, the heading is as follows : " Liber generationis Jesu Christi filii David filii Abraham." Can’t figure out why " filii " in either instance is in the genitive singular. Can’t come up with a good grammar rule to fit. My suspision is that " ,filii David…" is in apposition to " Jesu Christi " and " filii Abraham " is in apposition to " filii David." The only other explanation I can think of is that words have been left out and the literal translation, way back a thousand years ago or so, may have been something like “…The generation of Jesus Christ of a son of David of a son of Abraham. It this case both instances of " filii” might work. and David and Abraham would be undeclinable but theoretically in the genitive singular also. Any ideas?
Click to expand...
“Filii” in this case is what is called an appositive noun; these generally agree in case with the noun they describe. E.g., “Misit Metellum legatum” or “Ora pro nobis peccatoribus.” Thus the sentence says, as you would think, “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham.” The first filii is in the genitive to match “Jesu Christi,” the second to match “David,” which, as you correctly surmise, is also in the genitive. This particular sentence is unusual in that words that go together to form an appositive phrase, “filii David,” are genitive for different reasons. You might get a better picture by comparing, say, “Salvati sumus per Jesum Christum filium Mariae filiae Annae.”
 
Thank you Mark. I will think through your answer when I’m fully awake. This is one of those examples which has been discussed by scholars for a long time. I just couldn’t plow through whole books to get to their discussions. I hope to get onto Jstor but I’m not sure my library has access that I can use.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Thank you Mark. I will think through your answer when I’m fully awake. This is one of those examples which has been discussed by scholars for a long time. I just couldn’t plow through whole books to get to their discussions. I hope to get onto Jstor but I’m not sure my library has access that I can use.
Click to expand...
I’m not aware of any particular controversy about the translation of the verse, though I’m willing to be shown otherwise. As to the general construction using an appositive genitive, though, I thought I would also draw your attention to Mk 1:1:
Initium evangelii Iesu Christi Filii Dei.
 
Thanks for showing me the above examples in your last two posts. I haven’t gotten to Mark yet, it will be awhile - unless my interest wanes. My own Latin is just about a month old, my last exposure being decades ago. It just hit me that a good way to learn it would be to go through the Vulgate side by side with my Bennett’s Grammar and try to identify the different points of grammar ( parsing ?) as I went along. But Bennett is pretty compact and at times he doesn’t seem to explain something clearly or perhaps not at all ( as far as I could see). Then I just " google " the question. In the examples I have given I found books through " Google Books " that showed certain scholars had discussed the same points. Also, studying Latin takes the place of T.V. in my life - I gave that up for good. And being of an age where a lot of physical activity is too much for me ,this hobby helps keep the mind active - and it is at least as good as working cross word puzzles. And since it is the Bible I am using, there is some spiritual benefit as well. My questions are definitely not an indication of any disrespect for the Scriptures. Indeed it has re-enforced my Faith in the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the life and mission of the Church because , given all the vicissitudes in the history of the written Word, we still have the essential Word, written large with differences only in small, unimportant points of grammar or vocabulary. To me that says the Holy Spirit absolutely guides the Church and has always done so.
 
Matthew 5:13 "…Ad nihilum valet ultra, nisi ut mittatur foras et conculcetur ab hominibus. "

The question is: why the Present Subjunctive ( i.e. mittatur and conculcetur ). After much time with Bennett, I think this is an example of a Conditional Clause of the Second Type, para 303, pg 199. In this case however the " condition " or Protasis would seem to be the previous sentence and not the independent clause of the sentence above. And the Apodosis is the conclusion " nisi ut mittatur…" In such a case, if my analysis is correct, the conclusion would take the Present Subjunctive. The independent clause " …valet…" calls for the Present Indicative because it is a simple statement of a fact. Does anyone have an opinion of my reading of the syntax here? I don’t know whether or not I am right or wrong. I just don’t see what else it could be.
 
On my reading, it is nothing so complicated: the subjunctive simply follows from ut, as it always would. “It is good for nothing except that it be thrown outside.” The nisi should not be read as “unless [something happens],” but rather as “other than, but, except.” Or again, definition 31 of ut in the Oxford Latin Dictionary says, “. . . nisi ut, except on condition that, unless,” so I suppose these could simply be read together with the same force. Either way, the overall counterfactual/hypothetical sense of the verbs here ought to be a dead giveaway that the subjunctive is called for.
 
MarkThompson said:
On my reading, it is nothing so complicated: the subjunctive simply follows from ut, as it always would. “It is good for nothing except that it be thrown outside.” The nisi should not be read as “unless [something happens],” but rather as “other than, but, except.” Or again, definition 31 of ut in the Oxford Latin Dictionary says, “. . . nisi ut, except on condition that, unless,” so I suppose these could simply be read together with the same force. Either way, the overall counterfactual/hypothetical sense of the verbs here ought to be a dead giveaway that the subjunctive is called for.
Click to expand...
I don’t have access to the Oxford but Lewis and Short gives a mixed result in that " ut " leads to the Subjunctive only in certain types of clauses or sentences. I still think it is a matter of what kind of clause it occurs in. So in many cases one must examine the syntax and that is what is difficult, there is always room for uncertainty because it would involve correct analysis and that always involves a matter of opinion. Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
I don’t have access to the Oxford but Lewis and Short gives a mixed result in that " ut " leads to the Subjunctive only in certain types of clauses or sentences. I still think it is a matter of what kind of clause it occurs in. So in many cases one must examine the syntax and that is what is difficult, there is always room for uncertainty because it would involve correct analysis and that always involves a matter of opinion. Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.
Click to expand...
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.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top