2 Corinthians 5:1 Vulgate

Here you can discuss all things Latin. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Latin, and more.
Post Reply
User avatar
Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 928
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm

2 Corinthians 5:1 Vulgate

Post by Barry Hofstetter » Wed May 29, 2019 10:05 pm

This was also posted to the Facebook group B-Latin:

scimus enim quoniam si terrestris domus nostra huius habitationis dissolvatur quod aedificationem ex Deo habeamus domum non manufactam aeternam in caelis

In classical Latin scīmus would certainly set up indirect statement with accusative and infinitive, but Jerome follows with quoniam...quod + subjunctive. Quoniam becomes standard in later Latin for indirect constructions (see the Colloquia for more examples), and exactly follows the Greek which uses ὅτι, hoti. There is, however, nothing parallel to quod + subjunctive (the Greek as usually simply uses the indicative in the ὅτι clause, ἔχομεν, echomen, "we have"). I'm not sure precisely how to explain why he does so, but this must have sounded like the proper Latin to him for this context. Suggestions?
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
The Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.

User avatar
bedwere
Global Moderator
Posts: 3687
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: Didacopoli in California
Contact:

Re: 2 Corinthians 5:1 Vulgate

Post by bedwere » Wed May 29, 2019 11:34 pm

It could be that previous translations had quoniam + subjunctive and he didn't feel it was a good idea to change it. The Latin is his letters is classical.

User avatar
Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 928
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: 2 Corinthians 5:1 Vulgate

Post by Barry Hofstetter » Thu May 30, 2019 1:13 pm

bedwere wrote:
Wed May 29, 2019 11:34 pm
It could be that previous translations had quoniam + subjunctive and he didn't feel it was a good idea to change it. The Latin is his letters is classical.
That doesn't really answer the question, but it's good. Yes, the Latin in his letters is significantly different from his translation of the Bible. It's rather interesting to read Letter 57 (http://www.patrologia-lib.ru/patrolog/h ... pist03.htm, scroll down for it, and in English http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001057.htm) comparing his philosophy of translation here with what he does in the Vulgate. For him, translating a sacred text was considerably different from translating anything else.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
The Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.

User avatar
persequor
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 7:25 pm
Location: Arkansas, USA
Contact:

Re: 2 Corinthians 5:1 Vulgate

Post by persequor » Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:59 pm

Certainly, translating a sacred text gives you a heightened sense of responsibility. But it doesn’t change the fact that you are still attempting to communicate in human language. It’s unfortunate that he didn’t follow the idiomatic approach more in his Bible work. While the Vulgate is a great accomplishment as it stands, it could have been even better. I wonder if Erasmus’ later revision of the Vulgate went a more idiomatic route. Thoughts?
Carpe diem!--¡Aprovecha el día presente!--Seize the day!
---Poēta Rōmānus Horātius, Carmina (Odes), a.C. XXIII/DCCXXXI A.U.C.

Constantinus Philo
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 360
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Re: 2 Corinthians 5:1 Vulgate

Post by Constantinus Philo » Sat Jun 08, 2019 4:21 pm

The subjective in such cases is normal And can be found even in classical Latin, for instance, Caesar, Bellum civile, 1, 23, 3: pauca Apud EOS loquitur quod Sibi gratia relata non sit. The first recorded example of this quod with subjunctive is Bellum Hispaniense 36, 1: legati Carteienses renuntiaverunt quod Pompeium in potestate haberent.
Semper Fidelis

User avatar
Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 928
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: 2 Corinthians 5:1 Vulgate

Post by Barry Hofstetter » Sun Jun 09, 2019 2:09 am

Constantinus Philo wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 4:21 pm
The subjective in such cases is normal And can be found even in classical Latin, for instance, Caesar, Bellum civile, 1, 23, 3: pauca Apud EOS loquitur quod Sibi gratia relata non sit. The first recorded example of this quod with subjunctive is Bellum Hispaniense 36, 1: legati Carteienses renuntiaverunt quod Pompeium in potestate haberent.
So is this considered indirect statement of a sort, or is another grammatical explanation used? I found this lovely statement at my old alma mater's website:

The uses of the subjunctive may be divided into two major categories: the independent uses of the subjunctive and the dependent uses. All the dependent uses of the subjunctive arise from the independent uses. However, throughout its history, the subjunctive came to be used more and more as a grammatical marker of subordination. That is, Late Latin speakers would use it in any subordinate clause. Hence, its name: subjunctive = the mood for "subjoining" a subordinate clause to the main verb.

https://classics.osu.edu/Undergraduate- ... ubjunctive
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
The Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.

Constantinus Philo
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 360
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:04 pm

Re: 2 Corinthians 5:1 Vulgate

Post by Constantinus Philo » Sun Jun 09, 2019 2:47 am

Of course this is oratio obliqua, the French que has développed from quod
Semper Fidelis

Post Reply