Grammatical Errors in the Latin text of the Nova Vulgata

[Linusthe2nd]

I have run accross several grammatical errors in Psalm 16 of the Nova Vulgata. These all occur in the first paragraph. The first if the word " Deus " in line one of the 1st stanza. Clearly the vocative case singular is called for but " Deus " has no vocative singular. So I think " Dominie " would be a better choice. But perhaps this is an example of " poetic " license. Which is fine with me. What do you Latin scholars think?

The second is the choice of " eorum " in first line of stanza four. It would seem to me that " ei " should have been used since that is what would be used if it modifies " delores ." Third is the use of " eorum " in the second line of the same stanza. Since it seems to modify " libationes " perhaps " eae " should have been used. The fourth is the use of " eorum " again in the third line. Since it seems to modify " nomina " it seems that " ea " should have been used. Am I wrong? If I am wrong how is the use of " eorum " grammatically justified in these examples?

This leads me to a question. Does anyone know of a list of errors for the 1979 edition? does anyone know if anyone else is interested in discussing these errors? Perhaps some group of scholars is at work on it now? Does anyone know?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I should have used " eas " after " libationes " because " libationes " is accusative plural. While I’m back why not use " sanguines? " A simple adjective seems much better and the translation is much more accurate if " de sanguinibus " is dropped. The line now reads " I will not pour out their blood libations. " Besides I don’t think the ablative is called for. It requires something like " poetic license " to make it work.

 

[Mintaka]

The vocative singular of Deus is Deus. There are many Latin words that are the same in both the nominative and the vocative singular case.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It turns out that there has been a long historical discussion on this very question. It was apparently true that Christian writers regularly used " Deus " as the vocative but Classical sources didn’t. So your are correct as far as Biblical Latin and Christian sources are concerned. This discussion is found by " googling " the phrase ( vocative for the Latin word " Deus . ")

I am also wrong about the use of " eorum " cited above. In the each instance " eorum " is used as a Substantive Genitive plural. In the first instance it seems to refer to " qui " in " qui post deus alienos acceleraverunt. " In the second it seems to refer to either those who had the practice of " those " who poured out blood libations or to the " gods. " In the third it seems to refer also to these unamed " gods. "

Thanks for responding.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Since I have been reading the Nova Vulgata some thoughts came to me about the Scriptures as the inspired word of God. God certainly inspired the Sacred writers but I think God inspired them with the Ideas to be written down and not with the syntax and vocabulary they were to use. I think He left that to the natural abilities of the writers. And if He did inspire the original writers with the exact syntax and vocabulary to be used, He certainly didn’t so inspire those translators who came later. Otherwise why is it so difficult to determine what the various pronominal and adjetival substantatives refer to? And it is a problem, it crops up in nearly every paragraph. So I see the Word of God written large but not in detail. He then left it to the Church to guide us in instances of importance where disputes of meaning were concerned. And it doesn’t seem to me that He was concerned whether we understood what a particular pronominal or adjectival referred to as long as we got the general drift. What do you think?

 

[ProVobis]

You could say the Church chose its own Latin and did so when it was apparent the pre-Christian Latin of Cicero, Livy, Cornelius Lepos and the other classicists had become quite stable amongst the scholars. It was also one of the languages of the cross. While we study Classical Latin even in Catholic schools, it’s important that we learn Ecclesiastical Latin which has redefined “Deus” as the Trinitarian God we know. We also need to distinguish the “oratio” speech of Cicero and the “oratio” prayer to God inter alia.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I found confirmation in writing that " Deus " is used in the Vocative Singular of " Deus. " I happened to be reading an ancient grammar " Adan’s Grammar " by Charles Dexter Cleveland, Phil, 1836, available at Goole Books online. In his examples for the second declension he declines " Deus " and shows " Deus " as the correct form for the Vocative Singular. So Bennett is wrong or there is a disagreement among scholars ( nothing new). Just thought that was interesting.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I have run accross several grammatical errors in Psalm 16 of the Nova Vulgata. These all occur in the first paragraph. The first if the word " Deus " in line one of the 1st stanza. Clearly the vocative case singular is called for but " Deus " has no vocative singular. So I think " Dominie " would be a better choice. But perhaps this is an example of " poetic " license. Which is fine with me. What do you Latin scholars think?
…

Just want to set the record straight since this post has made its way around the net. My source on this one point was Bennett’s Grammar ch 25, par 4, pg 17( 1918 printing). A few weeks after this posted I found a direct contradiction in another Grammar I found from Google Books. I think I included that reference in a later post below. Of course no one cares to notice that. There is no problem. I accept the use of " Deus " as found in the N.V. I think Bennett carries more weight since his grammar has stood the use of time. Obviously, the translators did not consult Bennett. I have no idea whom they consulted but I am sure they must have done some checking. By the way I am just a layman interested in reading Biblical Latin, especially the N.V. Now anyone who has done just a
tiny bit of research into the history of the Latin Texts up to the present time is aware that this is still a work open to corrections ( i.e. there are or may still be errors other than just
printing errors). Please note , this is not a heritical statement. The Holy Pontiffs from the Council of Trent to John Paul 2, who have had anything to say about the Vulgate, have remarked in various ways that these Works are not free from every error, that such errors are not limited to " typos " ( ie. mechanical errors ). Even so they have said that the authorized versions are free of all Doctrinal and Moral errors and are to be held in highest esteem over all other versions and to be regarded as the source to be preferred for Eccliastical and Liturgical works , at least in the sense that they should be a tool to be guided by.

I would also like to add that anyone who has set the Clemtine ( or any other ) and the Nova Vulgata side by side will find many, many differences. These are not critical differences - at least I have found none. Mostly, they are differences in phrasing and vocabulary, which may change the slant on a phrase but certainly does not endanger Faith and Morals. I like the N.V. better in some places and the Clementine in others.

Here is the reference I mentioned above:I found confirmation in writing that " Deus " is used in the Vocative Singular of " Deus. " I happened to be reading an ancient grammar " Adan’s Grammar " by Charles Dexter Cleveland, Phil, 1836, available at Goole Books online. In his examples for the second declension he declines " Deus " and shows " Deus " as the correct form for the Vocative Singular. So Bennett is wrong or there is a disagreement among scholars ( nothing new). Just thought that was interesting.

 

[Equites_Christi]

Since I have been reading the Nova Vulgata some thoughts came to me about the Scriptures as the inspired word of God. God certainly inspired the Sacred writers but I think God inspired them with the Ideas to be written down and not with the syntax and vocabulary they were to use. I think He left that to the natural abilities of the writers. And if He did inspire the original writers with the exact syntax and vocabulary to be used, He certainly didn’t so inspire those translators who came later. Otherwise why is it so difficult to determine what the various pronominal and adjetival substantatives refer to? And it is a problem, it crops up in nearly every paragraph. So I see the Word of God written large but not in detail. He then left it to the Church to guide us in instances of importance where disputes of meaning were concerned. And it doesn’t seem to me that He was concerned whether we understood what a particular pronominal or adjectival referred to as long as we got the general drift. What do you think?

Perhaps, but also keep in mind that the original language of the Psalms was not Latin.

 

[MarkThompson]

Just want to set the record straight since this post has made its way around the net. My source on this one point was Bennett’s Grammar ch 25, par 4, pg 17( 1918 printing). A few weeks after this posted I found a direct contradiction in another Grammar I found from Google Books.

That passage in Bennett is just badly written. He did not mean that Deus “lacks” a vocative singular in the sense that it does not have one and the word cannot be used as a direct address, but only that it lacks the special -e formation that is typical of a second-declension noun.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That passage in Bennett is just badly written. He did not mean that Deus “lacks” a vocative singular in the sense that it does not have one and the word cannot be used as a direct address, but only that it lacks the special -e formation that is typical of a second-declension noun.

Yes, he certainly explained it badly. I certainly got the wrong idea from his explaination. Yet, he has not been the only one to question that point. I ran into several long discussions among older scholars about it on Google Books. I just gooled " vocative for the latin word " Deus " " to find them. Here is one: www.jstor.org/stable/270330 . One thing is clear. Whether or not it was acceptible in Classical Latin, it certainly seems the Latin translators of the Bible were convinced that it was a legitimate usage. One scholar suggested that the Biblical translators " invented " the usage out of necessity. Either way, it is used and that is that.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It is nice to know that help is only a few key strokes away.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

A final thought on this subject. It is clear that " Deus " is being used as a vocative. The mysterious part is that it is in the nominative form. It is also clear that Bennett did say " Deus " had no vocative singular. ( I fogot to address " meus " which as a masculine modeled after " bonus, a, um " does have a vocutive singular, which was not used in the example above. More on that in a minute.) I found today in Bennett # 171 the following: " By a species of attraction, the Nominative is occasionally used for the Vocative, especially in poetry and formal prose…" That certainly answers the question as far as " Deus " is concerned. But what about " meus? " It does have a vocative singular but it is not used. Why? Following Bennett’s logic we must conclude that " by attraction " meus uses the form of its noun even though it has a vocative singular of its own.

 

[MarkThompson]

You can of course find “Deus mi,” “O mi Deus,” and the like. “Meus” here was used throughout by Jerome and Augustine, and is presumably either an instance of nominative-pro-vocative (perhaps unlikely, since Augustine would write “Domine Deus meus”), or else, as I rather fancy, just for parallelism and poetry. Anyway, case shifts by attraction are hardly anything unique.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Well, I’m glad to learn that, can’t hadly wait to get confused again. I looked at your reference. A little too difficult for me to follow at the present time. Bennett did say that where an adjective modifies more than one noun of different genders, number, and case it would take its gender and number and case after the nearest noun. I’m just going from memory here, I may be wrong. I did find a case where the past participle form of a verb agreed with the subject of the entire Psalm and not with any noun in its specific sentence. Again, I could be wrong but it did appear to fit the little problem I was working on.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Do you know if there is a book which covers some of these " exceptions ? " Bennett is a good reference but perhaps there is a better reference which would be of help. I also ran into a noun which didn’t seem to be in any dictionary I had access to. I couldn’t find it in Lewis and Short either. The word was " obiectio. " White did show " obiectatio. " And I assume " obiectio " is a varient of that. I did find it on a word list but I don’t trust those altogether.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Do you know if there is a book which covers some of these " exceptions ? " Bennett is a good reference but perhaps there is a better reference which would be of help. I also ran into a noun which didn’t seem to be in any dictionary I had access to. I couldn’t find it in Lewis and Short either. The word was " obiectio. " White did show " obiectatio. " And I assume " obiectio " is a varient of that. I did find it on a word list but I don’t trust those altogether.

Forget this, I misspelled the word, no wonder I couldn’t find it.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Do you know if there is a book which covers some of these " exceptions ? " Bennett is a good reference but perhaps there is a better reference which would be of help. I also ran into a noun which didn’t seem to be in any dictionary I had access to. I couldn’t find it in Lewis and Short either. The word was " obiectio. " White did show " obiectatio. " And I assume " obiectio " is a varient of that. I did find it on a word list but I don’t trust those altogether.

Not the Nova Vulgata, naturally, but wrt the *Clementia *I always find valuable insight in Plater & White’s *Grammar of the Vulgate *-- It dates from 1926 but there appears to have been a 1986 reprint.

Not browseable by google books, but I see copies on ABEbooks.com and alibris.com, whence I snapped one up for ~$20 a few years ago.

About the only relevance to above discussions is noted among the Inflexional Peculiarities: “*meus *as voc. Deus meus, meus Deus frequently.” in section 92.

tee

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Not the Nova Vulgata, naturally, but wrt the *Clementia *I always find valuable insight in Plater & White’s *Grammar of the Vulgate *-- It dates from 1926 but there appears to have been a 1986 reprint.

Not browseable by google books, but I see copies on ABEbooks.com and alibris.com, whence I snapped one up for ~$20 a few years ago.

About the only relevance to above discussions is noted among the Inflexional Peculiarities: “*meus *as voc. Deus meus, meus Deus frequently.” in section 92.

tee

Thanks. Lewis and Short is still on line and it can be purchased for about $150. A lot more than I want to pay, for now anyway. I have the White Dictionary and the Dictionary of Thomas Aquinas.

 

[patrick457]

Just dropping my two cents:

I won’t exactly expect the Vulgate to display grammatical accuracy, since in places the translation is so literal to the Hebrew or Greek that it mainly sticks to the original grammar, at times without regard to natural sentence flow. (In other places Jerome employs a more loose translation style.)

Greek

Ὁ Θεός, ὁ Θεός μου, πρόσχες μοι· ἵνα τί ἐγκατέλιπές με;
μακρὰν ἀπὸ τῆς σωτηρίας μου οἱ λόγοι τῶν παραπτωμάτων μου.
Ὁ Θεός μου, κεκράξομαι ἡμέρας, καὶ οὐκ εἰσακούσῃ,
καὶ νυκτός, καὶ οὐκ εἰς ἄνοιαν ἐμοί.

Latin (Gallican Psalter, translated from Greek)

Deus, Deus meus, respice in me: quare me dereliquisti?
longe a salute mea verba delictorum meorum.
Deus meus, clamabo per diem, et non exaudies;
et nocte, et non ad insipientiam mihi.

Oh, and just thought I should mention: the Vulgate ain’t in pure Latinitas or Classical Latin, nor in colloquial street Latin or sermo vulgaris (aka Vulgar Latin), but in the slightly more syntactically simple (compared to Classical Latin) Ecclesiastical Latin.

From Wikipedia:

This most influential psalter has a distinctive style which is attributable to its origins as a translation of the Septuagint. Following the Septuagint, it eschews anthropomorphisms. For instance, the term rock is applied to God numerous times in the Hebrew Psalter, but the Latin term petra does not occur as an epithet for God in the gallicana. Instead more abstract words like refugium, “refuge”; locus munitus, “place of strength”; or adiutor, “helper” are used.

This psalter retains many Hebraisms by way of the Greek, the most noticeable being the redundant demonstrative. The relative pronoun is indeclinable in Hebrew, and so is accompanied by a redundant demonstrative. This use is reproduced in the Latin, although Latin has no need for it. For instance, Ps 18:4(19:3), quorum non audiantur voces eorum, which means, “whose voices, their voices, be not heard”. Also Ps 32(33):12, Beata gens cujus est Dominus Deus ejus, “blessed is the nation whose God, its God, is the Lord”. Ps 121(122):3, civitas, cujus participatio ejus in idipsum, “a city whose share, its share, is compact”.

Another Hebraism is the use of the conditional “if” to mean the negative “not”. Examples include Ps 88:36(89:34), si David mentiar, “if I lie to David”, which means, “I will not lie to David”. Ps 94(95):11, Si introibunt in requiem meam, “if they shall enter into my rest”, which means, "they shall not enter into my rest. Ps 131(132):3, Si introiero in tabernaculum domus meae, “If I shall enter into the tabernacle of my house”, which means, “I shall not enter into the tabernacle of my house”. Ps 130(131) has a double negative, Si non humiliter sentiebam sed exaltavi animam meam, “If I was not humbly minded but exalted my soul”, which is equivalent to “I was humbly minded and did not exalt my soul”.

Hebrew has only two grammatical genders, masculine and feminine, while Latin has three, including neuter. Hebrew’s lack of a neuter gender sometimes shows up in very idiosyncratic phrasing in the Gallican Psalter, for instance Ps. 26(27):4, unam petii a Domino, hanc requiram, “One thing I have asked of the Lord, this will I seek after”, where “thing” is rendered feminine in the verse. A native speaker of Latin would have used a neuter instead: Unum petii a Domino, hoc requiram.

Classical Latin occasionally employs a dangling nominative for rhetorical flourish, but this construction is especially common in the Gallicana. Ps. 17(18):31 has, Deus meus, impolluta via ejus, “my God, his way is undefiled” to mean, “the way of my God is undefiled”. Likewise Ps. 125(126):1 has, In convertendo Dominus captivitatem Sion, facti sumus sicut consolati for “The Lord, in bringing back the captivity of Zion, we became like men comforted”, instead of, Cum converteret Dominus captivitatem Sion, facti sumus sicut consolati, meaning, “When the Lord brought back the captivity of Zion, we became like men comforted”.