factus est

[Siegfried Zaytsev]

From LLPSI (p. 223):

Lydia: "Chrīstus est Deī fīlius quī homō factus est."

Is "factus est" here should be translated as "has become" or as "has been made"?

 

[Nikolaos]

Given that no agent is explicitly expressed, and taking into account the popular understanding of the trinity, I would say that "has become" or "became" is the most sensible translation. I don't think there is such a distinction as to rule out the other option, however, if you don't mind getting slapped in the face by Santa Claus.

 

[Pacifica]

"Became" would have been my first, most instinctive choice, but basically either that or "was made" is acceptable, at least from a linguistic point of view — from a theological point of view, I guess it could be debated world without end. However, the Douay-Rheims Bible, which was translated literally from the Vulgate, translated et verbum caro factum est in John 1:14 as "and the word was made flesh" and the KJV, which was translated from the original Greek, reads the same although the Greek verb, unlike the Latin, isn't technically a passive form of a verb meaning "to make" (In Greek, it's as if the deponent fieri had its own forms in all tenses).

 

[Siegfried Zaytsev]

(In Greek, it's as if the deponent fieri had its own forms in all tenses).

So in Koine Greek it is "has become"?

 

[Pacifica]

More exactly, "became".

 

[Pacifica]

Latin makes no difference between "became" and "has become", but Greek does. In English, "became" is more appropriate in this context.

 

[Siegfried Zaytsev]

Latin makes no difference between "became" and "has become", but Greek does.

But doesn't Latin have the simple past and the present perfect?

 

[Pacifica]

No. As far as past tenses go, Latin has:

- the pluperfect, corresponding to the English past perfect, e.g. "had done".
- the imperfect, often corresponding either to the English past continuous, e.g. "was doing" or to compound expressions denoting repeated past actions, e.g. "used to do" or "would do", and sometimes to the simple past, e.g. "did (repeatedly)".
- the perfect, corresponding either to the simple past, e.g. "did" or to the present perfect, e.g. "has done".

 

[Nikolaos]

Apparently you can sometimes find compound structures for present perfect in medieval Latin, but I think that'll be more of an exception than a rule.

 

[Siegfried Zaytsev]

No. As far as past tenses go, Latin has:

- the pluperfect, corresponding to the English past perfect, e.g. "had done".
- the imperfect, often corresponding either to the English past continuous, e.g. "was doing" or to compound expressions denoting repeated past actions, e.g. "used to do" or "would do", and sometimes to the simple past, e.g. "did (repeatedly)".
- the perfect, corresponding either to the simple past, e.g. "did" or to the present perfect, e.g. "has done".

I was unaware of that. Do you know of any reference that goes into more detail on this topic?

 

[Pacifica]

For an overview of Latin past tenses, you can have a look here; and here for the difference between perfect and imperfect specifically.