1 Cor 1:29,
ut non glorietur omnis caro in conspectu eius…
“Ut non” threw me, since this is normally used with result clauses, not purpose clauses (which regularly use ne). Context demands a purpose clause, however, and it literally reflects the Greek ὅπως μή (which is clearly purpose). Is this an example of too literal a translation on Jerome’s part, or did he really interpret it as a result clause? I’m opting for the former. Thoughts?
Hi Barry!
I found this in A&G: 531.1, note 2:
“Ut non sometimes occurs in clauses of purpose when non belongs to some particular word”. Perhaps it is being associated with glorietur, which is used again in verse 31: “Ut quemadmodum scriptum est: qui gloriatur, in Domino glorietur”.
EDIT: Or it could be caro. The general sense of the preceding and following verses seems to be that we should not pride ourselves in corporeal matters, but only in our relationship to the Lord.
But the example given of that is a much tighter connection with the non: ut plūra nōndīcam. I don’t have much Latin but I can’t see how that would be the same.
If Jerome were interpreting this as a result clause, he’d be reading it as a prohibition with the βλεπετε?
I just edited my previous post. The only other example I could find of non being used this way is in Cicero’s 1st Catiline oration:“confer te ad Manlium, concita perditos civis, secerne te a bonis, infer patriae bellum, exsulta impio latrocinio, ut a me non eiectus ad alienos, sed invitatus ad tuos isse videaris.” (Take yourself to Manlius, call together your good for nothing citizens, cut yourself off from the good (citizens), bring war to the fatherland, rise up in treasonous brigandage, so that you might appear not as an outcast by me to strangers, but as an invited guest by your own), where non is clearly negativing ejectus. In both cases non is belongs to a substantive, which leads me to believe that Jerome was using it with caro, to contrast corporeal with spiritual.
Joel’s citation “ut plura non dicam” is also from Cicero, his oration on Pompey’s command:
“itaque ut plura non dicam neque aliorum exemplis confirmem quantum auctoritas valeat in bello, ab eodem Cn. Pompeio omnium rerum egregiarum exempla sumantur.” (Not to say more (on the subject), nor confirm with examples of other men how much authority is effective in war, let there be taken examples of all the distinguished deeds done by the man himself, Cnaeus Pompeius)
EDIT: Added translations
Aetos had it right the first time.
Jerome correctly understood the purpose clause, and translates it correctly (if a little pedantically), making it unambiguously clear that the negative applies only to the verb, not to omnis caro (πασα σαρξ). If he’d written ne instead of ut non, the clause would have been open to misinterpretation as meaning “so that not everyone should brag in his sight” rather than “so that everyone not brag in his sight.”
Thank you, Michael! I think the key, for me anyway, is where non is placed. The fact that it is placed before the verb glorietur and nowhere else rules out omnis caro, just as in “ut plura non dicam”, non belongs to dicam, not plura.
It also has the effect of making the fact that this is a paraphrase of Jeremiah 9:23 clearer:
haec dicit Dominus non glorietur sapiens in sapientia sua et non glorietur fortis in fortitudine sua et non glorietur dives in divitiis suis
And thank you both!