Question from Moralia in Job

[Iacobus de Indianius]

I'm reading Gregory the Great's Moralia in Job, and am running into some trouble in two places.

The first is the following sentence, which I can't make sense of at all.

"Quid enim de his quae scienda sunt nesciunt qui scientiem omnia sciunt?"

Does it mean something like, "For what they do not know about these ones, [things] which they should know, who knows the one knowing all things?"

I assume that relative clause has a double accusative because omnia cannot be the subject of the clause given that it is introduced by "qui," right?

Oh, FYI: Gregory is discussing the divine nature of angels in this section.

Here's the second.

"Eorum itaque scientia comparatione nostrae valde dilatata est sed tamen comparatione divinae scientiae angusta; sicut et ipsi illorum spiritus comparatione quidem nostrorum corporum, spiritus sunt sed comparatione summi et incircumscripti spiritus, corpus."

I think the general idea is:

"And thus their knowledge in comparison of ours was very much expanded, but nonetheless narrow in comparison of divine knowledge; just as their spirits themselves are indeed spirits in comparison of our bodies, but their spirit in comparison of the supreme and infinite spirit, is body."

I don't understand how the "comparatio" is being used with the genetives that follow it.

Thanks in advance.

[radagasty]

"Quid enim de his quae scienda sunt nesciunt qui scientiem omnia sciunt?"

"For what they do not know about these ones, [things] which they should know, who knows the one knowing all things?"

I'm a little confused about which are the relative pronouns and which are the interrogative in your English translation, so I can't say whether its right or not. The Latin, however, means:

'For what do they, who know Him who knows all things, not know of those things which are to be known?'

I assume that relative clause has a double accusative because omnia cannot be the subject of the clause given that it is introduced by "qui," right?

There are two accusatives in the clause, but I wouldn't call it a double accusative, because they don't both depend on sciunt in the same way. Omnia is the object of scientem and scientem omnia is the object of sciunt.

I don't understand how the "comparatio" is being used with the genetives that follow it.

I'm not quite sure what the problem is here. You understood the sentence well enough. 'Comparison with sth' is regularly expressed by 'comparatio + gen.'.

[horus92]

"Quid enim de his quae scienda sunt nesciunt qui scientiem omnia sciunt?"

I think there's either a typo, a corrupt text, or a neologism here; scientiem non Latine est! It'd help if you gave us more context.

[radagasty]

I think there's either a typo, a corrupt text, or a neologism here; scientiem non Latine est!

Oh... I didn't even notice the typo. I just read it as scientem, which it almost certainly would be.

[horus92]

I think there's either a typo, a corrupt text, or a neologism here; scientiem non Latine est!

Oh... I didn't even notice the typo. I just read it as scientem, which it almost certainly would be.

"Quid enim de his quae scienda sunt nesciunt qui scientiem omnia sciunt?"

In that case I believe it means, "for why do they not know (or "are unaware of" etc.) those things which must be known when they know he who knows all (i.e. God)?" Context would make it clearer of course, "scienda" might be able to be loosely translated as "what they want to know" or something like that, etc.

[Iacobus de Indianius]

Thanks to you both for giving your attention to this.

You're right, I did mistype "scientem." Radagasty hit the nail on the head, "For what do they, who know Him who knows all things, not know of those things which are to be known?"

What type of context would you like horus? I looked for a Latin version of the Moralia section above online, but couldn't find anything. If it helps, the line is found in Book 3, section 2, lines 31-32.

If you're just looking for a description in English about what's going on, how's this: Gregory is discussing these lines from Job, " Quadam die cum venissent filii Dei, ut assisterent coram Domino, adfuit inter eos etiam satan." His goal is to explain the apparent contradiction related to the angels placing themselves before God and being charged with serving as ministers to the people. His conclusion is that the angels are able to do both at once.

I'm not very familiar with Gregory's cosmology, so I can't give much more context about the problems he is discussing. I'm also not sure where the angels are charged with being ministers to the people either. I could type up some of the Latin if you think that will help. Overall, I tend to view most theology as nonsense and not worth the trouble of understanding. I'm only reading Gregory because I like to have an easy work to ready while I struggle with Horus and Livy.

Thanks again.