Miscellaneous Questions from the Vulgate

[Quaeso]

That makes sense, since rogabat...ut...recipi as a substantive clause would need a subjunctive verb, but both debere and recipi are infinitives.

 

[Pacifica]

Yep.

 

[Pacifica]

(If we had ut + subjunctive, only the ut clause would have been a substantive clause, though; rogabat would have been the verb on which the substantive clause depended, not itself part of the substantive clause.)

 

[Quaeso]

I keep making that mistake, I'll try to remember that. The ut qui... clause is causal, but is it also characteristic? (AG 535.e)

 

[Quaeso]

Hi autem erant nobiliores eorum qui sunt Thessalonicæ, qui susceperunt verbum cum omni aviditate, quotidie scrutantes Scripturas, si hæc ita se haberent. Ac. 17,11

Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so.

οὗτοι δὲ ἦσαν εὐγενέστεροι τῶν ἐν Θεσσαλονίκῃ, οἵτινες ἐδέξαντο τὸν λόγον μετὰ πάσης προθυμίας, τὸ καθ᾿ ἡμέραν ἀνακρίνοντες τὰς γραφὰς εἰ ἔχοι ταῦτα οὕτως.

Thank you, are verba the subject of haberent and the antecedent of hæc ? And for se haberent I realize the transferred meaning is simply "to be" but literally, is that in the middle sense? (LS habeo II.C,6.)

 

[Pacifica]

are verba the subject of haberent?

Yes. Well, no, I misread: haec is the subject. This can refer to words but also more vaguely (and primarily) to "things". Here I would simply take it as the things that he was saying.

literally, is that in the middle sense?

Not really, since haberent is active. However, it has a reflexive object (se), and an active verb with a reflexive object can be similar in meaning to a verb in the middle voice (or passive in middle sense, as it is often called where Latin is concerned).

 

[Quaeso]

fecitque ex uno omne genus hominum inhabitare super universam faciem terræ, definiens statuta tempora, et terminos habitationis eorum, quærere Deum si forte attrectent eum, aut inveniant, quamvis non longe sit ab unoquoque nostrum. Ac. 17, 27

And hath made of one, all mankind, to dwell upon the whole face of the earth, determining appointed times, and the limits of their habitation. That they should seek God, if happily they may feel after him or find him, although he be not far from every one of us:

ἐποίησέ τε ἐξ ἑνὸς αἵματος πᾶν ἔθνος ἀνθρώπων κατοικεῖν ἐπὶ πᾶν τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς γῆς, ὁρίσας προστεταγμένους καιροὺς καὶ τὰς ὁροθεσίας τῆς κατοικίας αὐτῶν, ζητεῖν τὸν Κύριον, εἰ ἄρα γε ψηλαφήσειαν αὐτὸν καὶ εὕροιεν, καί γε οὐ μακρὰν ἀπὸ ἑνὸς ἑκάστου ἡμῶν ὑπάρχοντα.

Thank you, does quærere form an infinitive object clause (and also an apodosis) governed by fecitque? And is si...inveniat the FLV protasis?

 

[Pacifica]

Quaerere could possibly depend on fecit the same way inhabitare does but I think it's more likely an infinitive of purpose.

I wouldn't say that quaerere is really the apodosis of the si clause. Or perhaps it's a loose kind of apodosis. In any case the si clause here has a meaning like "to see if they can..." It's their purpose in seeking God, rather than a condition that needs to be fulfilled in order for them to seek God.

 

[Quaeso]

Quaerere could possibly depend on fecit the same way inhabitare does but I think it's more likely an infinitive of purpose.

Thank you, if it's not connected to fecit, then it looks like the infinitive is just floating there. Isn't the infinitive of purpose a complementary infinitive, i.e. relying on a previous verb?

 

[Pacifica]

This is not classical, but in the Vulgate, an infinitive can just convey purpose the same way an ut clause does (I believe it's a Graecism in many cases).

 

[Quaeso]

Et Zacharías pater ejus replétus est Spíritu Sancto : et prophetávit, dicens :

68 Benedíctus Dóminus Deus Israël,
quia visitávit, et fecit redemptiónem plebis suæ :
69 et eréxit cornu salútis nobis
in domo David púeri sui,
70 sicut locútus est per os sanctórum,
qui a sǽculo sunt, prophetárum ejus :
71 salútem ex inimícis nostris,
et de manu ómnium qui odérunt nos :
72 ad faciéndam misericórdiam cum pátribus nostris :
et memorári testaménti sui sancti :
73 jusjurándum, quod jurávit ad Ábraham patrem nostrum,
datúrum se nobis
74 ut sine timóre, de manu inimicórum nostrórum liberáti,
serviámus illi
75 in sanctitáte et justítia coram ipso,
ómnibus diébus nostris.
76 Et tu puer, prophéta Altíssimi vocáberis :
præíbis enim ante fáciem Dómini paráre vias ejus,
77 ad dandam sciéntiam salútis plebi ejus
in remissiónem peccatórum eórum
78 per víscera misericórdiæ Dei nostri,
in quibus visitávit nos, óriens ex alto :
79 illumináre his qui in ténebris et in umbra mortis sedent :
ad dirigéndos pedes nostros in viam pacis. -Lk. 1, 67

And Zachary his father was filled with the Holy Ghost; and he prophesied, saying:

68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel;
because he hath visited and wrought the redemption of his people:
69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation to us,
in the house of David his servant:
70 As he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets,
who are from the beginning:
71 Salvation from our enemies,
and from the hand of all that hate us:
72 To perform mercy to our fathers,
and to remember his holy testament,
73 The oath, which he swore to Abraham our father,
that he would grant to us,
74 That being delivered from the hand of our enemies,
we may serve him without fear,
75 In holiness and justice before him,
all our days.
76 And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest:
for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways:
77 To give knowledge of salvation to his people,
unto the remission of their sins:
78 Through the bowels of the mercy of our God,
in which the Orient from on high hath visited us:
79 To enlighten them that sit in darkness, and in the shadow of death:
to direct our feet into the way of peace.

Thank you, here are the green italisized words governed by the preceding red italisized verb? Variously are the green words accusative noun objects, or purpose clauses in the form of gerundives, infinitives, or an ut clause?

 

[Pacifica]

It's all a bit loosely constructed.

Salutem and iusiurandum could be loosely objects of an implied locutus est, or they could be some sort of loose apposition to redemptionem. Ad faciendam (which is an infinitive in the Greek) and memorari could be infinitives of purpose depending either on salutem or on fecit redemptionem; or they could themselves also be loose objects of locutus est or loose appositions to redemptionem.

Ut ... serviamus illi is probably a substantive clause object of daturum.

Parare is an infinitive of purpose dependent on praeibis. It's a bit unclear whether ad dandam and illuminare also depend on praeibis or if ad dandam depends on parare or even on vias and illuminare depends in turn on ad dandam etc. or even just on all that precedes in that sentence.

 

[Abbatiſſæ Scriptor]

Mat 7:29 'Erat enim docens eos...' looks like a preſent participle forming a progreſſive aſpect. How rare is this?

 

[Pacifica]

I suppose you might find it in a few places in the Vulgate,* but generally speaking, it's pretty rare (and, in any case, not classical).

*Since I'm reading it right now, I can keep an eye out for such constructions if you like. I'm currently in Deuteronomy and, while it's always possible that I missed one, I can't remember seeing any so far.

 

[Quaeso]

Mat 7:29 'Erat enim docens eos...' looks like a preſent participle forming a progreſſive aſpect. How rare is this?

I'll keep an eye out for it too, but did you ask that because Latin doesn't classify a progressive tense? Its looks to me like its simply another replication of the Greek: ἦν γὰρ διδάσκων, but I wonder if erat docens would be any different from docebat in sense?

 

[Pacifica]

What I wonder is whether that construction is normal in Greek or also an oddity/non-classical thing there.

 

[Abbatiſſæ Scriptor]

Pacifica and I have had previous exchanges on Jerome's uſe of the preſent participle, which has long been an intereſt of mine. I regret that my knowledge of Greek and Hebrew has faded badly in my old age, but I have noticed how willing Jerome often was to bend Latin to preserve the idiom of the ſource language.

 

[Dantius]

What I wonder is whether that construction is normal in Greek or also an oddity/non-classical thing there.

It's not super common but I definitely feel like I've seen it more often in Greek. I also remember an instance in Livy of erat ... vergens but that doesn't quite feel the same.

 

[Pacifica]

*Since I'm reading it right now, I can keep an eye out for such constructions if you like. I'm currently in Deuteronomy and, while it's always possible that I missed one, I can't remember seeing any so far.

As it happens, it didn't take long for me to spot one in Deuteronomy. I'll post it with some context. It's from chapter 28.

15 Quod si audire nolueris vocem Domini Dei tui, ut custodias, et facias omnia mandata ejus et cæremonias, quas ego præcipio tibi hodie, venient super te omnes maledictiones istæ, et apprehendent te. 16 Maledictus eris in civitate, maledictus in agro. 17 Maledictum horreum tuum, et maledictæ reliquiæ tuæ. 18 Maledictus fructus ventris tui, et fructus terræ tuæ, armenta boum tuorum, et greges ovium tuarum. 19 Maledictus eris ingrediens, et maledictus egrediens. 20 Mittet Dominus super te famem et esuriem, et increpationem in omnia opera tua, quæ tu facies: donec conterat te, et perdat velociter, propter adinventiones tuas pessimas in quibus reliquisti me. 21 Adjungat tibi Dominus pestilentiam, donec consumat te de terra ad quam ingredieris possidendam.

22 Percutiat te Dominus egestate, febri et frigore, ardore et æstu, et aëre corrupto ac rubigine, et persequatur donec pereas. 23 Sit cælum, quod supra te est, æneum: et terra, quam calcas, ferrea. 24 Det Dominus imbrem terræ tuæ pulverem, et de cælo descendat super te cinis, donec conteraris. 25 Tradat te Dominus corruentem ante hostes tuos: per unam viam egrediaris contra eos, et per septem fugias, et dispergaris per omnia regna terræ, 26 sitque cadaver tuum in escam cunctis volatilibus cæli, et bestiis terræ, et non sit qui abigat. 27 Percutiat te Dominus ulcere Ægypti, et partem corporis, per quam stercora egeruntur, scabie quoque et prurigine: ita ut curari nequeas. 28 Percutiat te Dominus amentia et cæcitate ac furore mentis, 29 et palpes in meridie sicut palpare solet cæcus in tenebris, et non dirigas vias tuas. Omnique tempore calumniam sustineas, et opprimaris violentia, nec habeas qui liberet te. 30 Uxorem accipias, et alius dormiat cum ea. Domum ædifices, et non habites in ea. Plantes vineam, et non vindemies eam. 31 Bos tuus immoletur coram te, et non comedas ex eo. Asinus tuus rapiatur in conspectu tuo, et non reddatur tibi. Oves tuæ dentur inimicis tuis, et non sit qui te adjuvet. 32 Filii tui et filiæ tuæ tradantur alteri populo, videntibus oculis tuis, et deficientibus ad conspectum eorum tota die, et non sit fortitudo in manu tua. 33 Fructus terræ tuæ, et omnes labores tuos, comedat populus quem ignoras: et sis semper calumniam sustinens, et oppressus cunctis diebus, 34 et stupens ad terrorem eorum quæ videbunt oculi tui.

Compare omnique tempore calumniam sustineas, et opprimaris violentia a few verses earlier. The funny thing is that the Hebrew construction seems similar in both places but was rendered differently: Deuteronomy 28 - Hebrew English Translation Massoretic Text MT Interlinear Holy Name King James Version KJV Strong's Concordance Online Parallel Bible Study

 

[Abbatiſſæ Scriptor]

sis semper calumniam sustinens, et oppressus cunctis diebus, 34 et stupens ad terrorem eorum quæ videbunt oculi tui.

Intereſting. Were a progreſſive aspect a real part of Latin, it would be natural with ſemper -- but for verbal aſpects to be recogniſed in periphraſtic conſtructions they need to be normal for the language.