I’m new to Latin. I saw a phase “Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia” by Ambrose and wanted to expand on it. I wanted to say “Wherever Peter is, there is the church: That is, wherever men believe what he wrote in [his] first epistle chapter 3 verse 21, namely both that baptism is necessary to salvation and that faith is necessary to baptism, there is the church.”
I translated it “Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia: Id est, ubi credunt quod scripsit in epistolae I capiti III versus XXI, utpote et baptisma est necessaria ad salutem et fides est necessaria ad baptismum, ibi ecclesia.”
I have four questions: Is this grammatically correct? Is it equivalent to the English (or at least close enough)? Should I use dico or something else rather than utpote for namely? I also had a problem with the word baptism - my dictionary doesn’t have it, so I scanned the Vulgate to see if I could find it used in different cases and piece its declension together - does anyone know of a Latin dictionary with the word baptism in it?
I have four questions: Is this grammatically correct? Is it equivalent to the English (or at least close enough)?
There are just a few grammatical errors, but it is accurate. Obviously, you are writing in Ecclesiastical rather than Classical Latin, so I cannot comment on what proper contemporary usage would be, nor hold this to proper Classical syntax (e.g. oratio obliqua).
the cases are somewhat mixed up in the part that goes “in epistolae I capiti III versus XXI”. in would take the ablative here, yet there is no ablative in this part. I myself am not entirely sure how you would word this, but I think it would be safe to literally say “in verse XXI of chapter III of epistle I”, which would translate to in epistolae I capitis III versu XXI, to preserve your word order (assuming the 4th declension still exists at this period).
Should I use > dico > or something else rather than > utpote > for > namely> ?
utpote seems to be quite restricted to certain constructions, which this sentence does not qualify for; for more information, read this. Then again, this may not be as restricted in the period which you are imitating. scilicet or videlicet would be good choices, very common in later Latin.
I also had a problem with the word baptism - my dictionary doesn’t have it, so I scanned the Vulgate to see if I could find it used in different cases and piece its declension together - does anyone know of a Latin dictionary with the word baptism in it?
for “baptism” you have two choices:
the form that is faithful to its Greek origins, baptisma, baptismatis (neuter), and the bastardized form, baptismum, baptismi (neuter). It seems a little silly to use both forms in the same sentence though. No matter which you choose, necessaria will need to be neuter (necessarium) to agree with the noun.