Miscellaneous Questions from the Vulgate

[CMatthiasT88]

...starting at the book of Joshua and following.

Solve, inquit, calceamentum tuum de pedibus tuis: locus enim, in quo stas, sanctus est. Fecitque Josue ut sibi fuerat imperatum. -V.Jos.5.16

Loose, saith he, thy shoes from off thy feet: for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Josue did as was commanded him. -DR

I would say that fuerat imperatum is a pluperfect passive verb with an artificial subject if that is the right name, meaning "it had been commanded". But now my problem is sibi, owing to the fact that I take for granted that sibi and its related inflections are necessarily reflexive to the subject. Shouldn't a demonstrative pronoun be used here instead of the reflexive sibi?

 

[Pacifica]

I would say that fuerat imperatum is a pluperfect passive verb with an artificial subject if that is the right name, meaning "it had been commanded".

I think you mean "impersonal subject". If so, yes.

But now my problem is sibi, owing to the fact that I take for granted that sibi and its related inflections are necessarily reflexive to the subject. Shouldn't a demonstrative pronoun be used here instead of the reflexive sibi?

A demonstrative pronoun would have been more regular, but there's a bit of leeway with this. The writer was presumably thinking along the lines of "Josue did as had been commanded to Josue himself, not to some other person." Well, he almost certainly wasn't thinking about it consciously like that but, you know, that was the feeling.

 

[CMatthiasT88]

Factusque est terminus filiorum Ruben Jordanis fluvius. Hæc est possessio Rubenitarum per cognationes suas urbium et viculorum. -V.Jos.13.23

And the river Jordan was the border of the children of Ruben. This is the possession of the Rubenites, by their kindreds, of cities and villages. -DR

Hæc est possessio filiorum Gad per familias suas, civitates et villæ earum. -V.Jos13.28

This is the possession of the children of Gad by their families, their cities, and villages. -DR

Thank you. Here in these two similar passages, I suspect that urbium, viculorum, and villae earum are genitives of material.

 

[Pacifica]

Urbium and viculorum are genitives modifying possessio. I don't know if they would usually be called genitives of material but I guess the possessio is made of the cities and villages in a way, so maybe using that term makes at least some sort of sense. (I'm more used to seeing the term applied to phrases that are more concretely about material, e.g. paries lapidis.)

Villae is nominative, like civitates.

 

[CMatthiasT88]

En ego hodie ingredior viam universæ terræ, et toto animo cognoscetis quod de omnibus verbis, quæ se Dominus præstiturum vobis esse pollicitus est, unum non præterierit incassum. -V.Jos.23.14

Behold this day I am going into the way of all the earth, and you shall know with all your mind that of all the words which the Lord promised to perform for you, not one hath failed. -DR

Thank you. Here praeterierit I would say is informal indirect discourse subjunctive. The relative clause appears to be formal indirect discourse, but instead I suspect it is a special construction of praesto. I take se to be accusative instead of ablative and quae to be accusative instead of nominative, and I suspect that the infinitive goes with the future participle. "... ye shall know with your entire mind, that of all the words which the Lord promised, who was then about to show himself to you, not one has passed in vain."

 

[Pacifica]

Here praeterierit I would say is informal indirect discourse subjunctive.

If by "informal" you mean "non-classical" because the clause would be acc.-and-inf. in classical Latin, then yes.

The problem I'm having is with the relative clause which appears to be formal indirect discourse, or a special construction of praesto. I take se to be accusative instead of ablative and quae to be accusative instead of nominative, and I suspect that the infinitive goes with the future participle. "... ye shall know with your entire mind, that of all the words which the Lord promised, who was then about to show himself to you, not one has passed in vain."

No.

quae = (the words) which: accusative, object of praestiturum esse.
se = himself: accusative, subject of praestiturum esse
vobis = for you: dative, indirect object of praestiturum esse
praestiturum esse = to be going to perform: future active infinitive, verb of the indirect statement

Dominus = the Lord: nominative, subject of pollicitus est
pollicitus est = main verb of the relative clause

So, literally: (the words) which the Lord promised himself to be going to perform for you
... which really means: (the words) which the Lord promised that he would perform for you.

 

[CMatthiasT88]

Cumque cepisset eam Othoniel filius Cenez frater Caleb minor, dedit ei Axam filiam suam conjugem. Quam pergentem in itinere monuit vir suus ut peteret a patre suo agrum. Quæ cum suspirasset sedens in asino, dixit ei Caleb: Quid habes? -V.Jdg.1.14

And Othoniel the son of Cenez, the younger brother of Caleb, having taken it, he gave him Axa his daughter to wife. And as she was going on her way her husband admonished her to ask a field of her father. And as she sighed sitting on her donkey, Caleb said to her: What aileth thee?

Thank you. Here the use of suus appears to be similar to post #1 above, where the reflexive suus refers to the object instead of the subject. I would suspect ipsius could be substituted for suus?

 

[Pacifica]

The use of suus not referring to a subject owner is regular when something is done to an object by someone/something that is their own.

 

[CMatthiasT88]

Nova bella elegit Dominus, et portas hostium ipse subvertit: clypeus et hasta si apparuerint in quadraginta millibus Israël.-V.Jdg.5.8

The Lord chose new wars, and he himself overthrew the gates of the enemies: a shield and spear was not seen among forty thousand of Israel. -DR

Thank you. I'm guessing that si is being used here elliptically, in the sense of "in hope that" or "to see if", and that apparuerint is perfect subjunctive.

 

[Pacifica]

The context seems to suggest something along the lines of "(let me be damned) if a shield and spear was seen..."; a way to emphasize that a shield and spear was not seen.

That isn't normal Latin; maybe a Hebrew usage translated literally.

 

[Avunculus H]

That isn't normal Latin; maybe a Hebrew usage translated literally.

Yes. The whole passage is problematic; modern translations deviate from the Vulgate strongly here. The Septuagint has:
8 ἐξελέξαντο θεοὺς καινούς, ὅτε ἐπολέμησαν πόλεις ἀρχόντων· θυρεὸς ἐὰν ὀφθῇ καὶ λόγχη ἐν τεσσεράκοντα χιλιάσιν ἐν Ἰσραήλ.
"They chose new gods, when they made war on the cities of rulers (or: when the cities of rulers made war); if a shield was seen and a spear in forty thousand in Israel".
See also the discussion here on the Hebrew text (scroll down to the notes), which is the source of the confusion; FWIW, they translate the Hebrew as:
God chose new leaders,
then fighters appeared in the city gates;
but, I swear, not a shield or spear could be found
among forty military units in Israel.

 

[CMatthiasT88]

Clamavitque omnis Ephraim, et præoccupavit aquas atque Jordanem usque Bethbera. Apprehensosque duos viros Madian, Oreb et Zeb, interfecit Oreb in petra Oreb, Zeb vero in torculari Zeb. V. Jdg. 7.25

And all Ephraim shouted, and took the waters before them and the Jordan as far as Bethbera. And having taken two men of Madian, Oreb and Zeb: Oreb they slew in the rock of Oreb, and Zeb in the winepress of Zeb. -DR

Interesting, thank you. Here I would expect apprehensosque to be in the ablative absolute instead of the accusative. My guess is that interfecit is acting as a verb for several objects: Apprehensosque, and Oreb et Zeb. "He killed two apprehended men of Madian, Oreb and Zeb..."

 

[Pacifica]

Pretty much. More precisely put, apprehensos duos viros is the object, and Oreb and Zeb are in apposition.

Note that it's unusual for an ablative absolute to refer to the direct object, subject, or any other grammatical component of a clause. Usually, the subject of the ablative absolute is someone/something not mentioned elsewhere in the clause, and when it would be, a construction like the one used here is preferred.

 

[CMatthiasT88]

Intrabimus ad securos, in regionem latissimam, tradetque nobis Dominus locum, in quo nullius rei est penuria eorum quæ gignuntur in terra. -V.Jud.18.10

We shall come to a people that is secure, into a spacious country, and the Lord will deliver the place to us, in which there is no want of any thing that groweth on the earth. -DR

Thank you. My guess here is that eorum is a possessive genitive, and that it's object is locum, and that the antecedent for quae (nominative feminine plural?) might be rei.

 

[Pacifica]

Eorum is a partitive genitive, and it is the antecedent of quae. Nullius rei eorum quae... = literally "of no thing of those things that..."

quae (nominative feminine plural?)

Neuter plural.

that the antecedent for quae [...] might be rei.

Impossible: gignuntur is plural, so it wouldn't fit a singular antecedent like rei.

 

[CMatthiasT88]

Dixeruntque ei filii Dan: Cave ne ultra loquaris ad nos, et veniant ad te viri animo concitati, et ipse cum omni domo tua pereas. Et sic cœpto itinere perrexerunt. Videns autem Michas quod fortiores se essent, reversus est in domum suam. -V.Jud.18.25-26

And the children of Dan said to him: See thou say no more to us, lest men enraged come upon thee, and thou perish with all thy house. And so they went on the journey they had begun. But Michas seeing that they were stronger than he, returned to his house. -DR

Thank you. Here I would say that coepto itinere is an ablative of specification instead of an object of perrexerunt.

 

[Pacifica]

Yes.

 

[CMatthiasT88]

Nec hoc latet, quod locutus est Achior, nec illud ignoratur, quod ei jusseris evenire. Constat enim Deum nostrum sic peccatis offensum, ut mandaverit per prophetas suos ad populum quod tradat eum pro peccatis suis. Et quoniam sciunt se offendisse Deum suum filii Israël, tremor tuus super ipsos est. Jud 11:6-8

It is known also what Achior said, nor are we ignorant of what thou hast commanded to be done to him. For it is certain that our God is so offended with sins, that he hath sent word by his prophets to the people, that he will deliver them up for their sins. And because the children of Israel know they have offended their God, thy dread is upon them.

Hello, wondering why Deum is in the accusative instead of nominative.

 

[Pacifica]

Deum nostrum sic peccatis offensum (esse) is an accusative-and-infinitive clause subject of the verb constat.

 

[Clemens]

Thanks for explaining that, I was trying to read cōnstat as an impersonal verb.