2 Corinthians 5:1 Vulgate

[Barry Hofstetter]

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?

[bedwere]

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.

[Barry Hofstetter]

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.

[persequor]

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?

[Constantinus Philo]

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.

[Barry Hofstetter]

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

[Constantinus Philo]

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