There are a number of different versions of the Latin Bible–not just textual variants, but versions that are substantially different from one another in various passages. Some of the Latin versions are translations of the Greek Septuagint, which differs in many respects from the Masoretic text of the Hebrew scriptures (the version of the Hebrew text that was established around 800-900 CE, which is the standard Hebrew text of the Jewish tradition). It’s well known that the Masoretic version differs in some respects from other versions that circulated in antiquity, and some Latin versions may have been made in antiquity from Hebrew texts that differ from the Masoretic text. So there may be different English texts that can be traced back to different versions of the Hebrew text.
I only did a quick search but the Masoretic text, the Septuagint and the Vulgata all seem to agree on “qui descenditis in mare”.
The only “explanation” I found for “Let the sea roar” is the following :
The “Cn” is explained as follows on their website :
Maybe their translation is supported by some manuscript tradition but as they do not cite any I doubt it. If this is really the case, I found their tampering with the text quite bold (even if it is based on parallels in the Psalms 96 and 98). It is not as if the Hebrew/Greek/Latin texts does not make sense…
The Latin version quoted by pmda doesn’t seem grammatically coherent:
laus ejus ab extremis terrae, qui descenditis in mare, et plenitudo ejus
laus is nominative, but there is no verb of which it could be the subject.
Then a 2d plur. relative clause follows: qui descenditis in mare – “[you] who go down into the sea”. One would expect an imperative, but cantate is separated by the puzzling laus ejus ab extremis terrae.
And the next phrase, et plenitudo ejus, also seems stranded–is it parallel to qui descenditis in mare? Is it a subject of cantate?
What follows, insulae, et habitatores earum, also seems to be a subject of cantate, left stranded by the laus ejus phrase.
In sum, if the Latin version is an accurate reflection of the Hebrew text, something seems amiss here, and perhaps that’s why the NRSV resorted to textual emendation (maybe on the basis of the Dead Sea Scrolls?). There is probably a discussion of this passage somewhere in the scholarly literature.
I was thinking they are vocatives also - how about this as a translation:
Cantate Domino canticum novum, laus ejus ab extremis terrae, qui descenditis in mare, et plenitudo ejus; insulae, et habitatores earum.
Sing to the Lord a new song, his praise from the ends of the earth, [you] who go down to the sea, and all of its plenty, the islands and you who dwell in them.
I found the link earlier today.
The Greek and Hebrew both a text similar in meaning to the Latin.
Let the sea roar is not in any of them.
The Hebrew does look a bit awkward, and it seems that the English text you cite
has been expanded on the basis of the psalms i.e. Ps 96.11 and 98.7.
I make this mean literally:
Sing (plural imperative) to YHWH a new song, his song of praise from the end of the earth,
goers down of the sea and its fullness, islands and their inhabitants.
This doesn’t seem to make very good sense and the translators of the NRSV seem to have used
the Psalms to imporove it.