Miscellaneous Questions from the Vulgate

[Pacifica]

One more to add to the collection:

eratque Genubath habitans apud Pharaonem cum filiis ejus. (I Kings 11:20)

And one more:

Neque enim mansi in domo ex eo tempore quo eduxi Israël usque ad diem hanc: sed fui semper mutans loca tabernaculi, et in tentorio manens cum omni Israël. (I Chron. 17:5)

 

[Quaeso]

qui de tantis periculis nos eripuit, et eruit: in quem speramus quoniam et adhuc eripiet,adjuvantibus et vobis in oratione pro nobis: ut ex multorum personis, ejus quæ in nobis est donationis, per multos gratiæ agantur pro nobis.-2 Cor. 1.11

But we had in ourselves the answer of death, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who raiseth the dead. Who hath delivered and doth deliver us out of so great dangers: in whom we trust that he will yet also deliver us. You helping withal in prayer for us: that for this gift obtained for us, by the means of many persons, thanks may be given by many in our behalf.

ὃς ἐκ τηλικούτου θανάτου ἐρρύσατο ἡμᾶς καὶ ρύεται, εἰς ὃν ἠλπίκαμεν ὅτι καὶ ἔτι ρύσεται, συνυπουργούντων καὶ ὑμῶν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν τῇ δεήσει, ἵνα ἐκ πολλῶν προσώπων τὸ εἰς ἡμᾶς χάρισμα διὰ πολλῶν εὐχαριστηθῇ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν.

Thank you, looks like the Latin differs a bit from the Greek, but is ejus quæ in nobis est donationis a "genitive envelope" which modifies gratiae? Or perhaps it is a genitive object of a paraphrastic verb gratiae agantur (εὐχαριστηθῇ )?

 

[Pacifica]

The genitive eius donationis modifies gratiae, yes. It's a kind of objective genitive (the gift being the object of the thanks).

The Greek is, as you say, rather differently constructed from the Latin. There τὸ εἰς ἡμᾶς χάρισμα is the subject of the verb εὐχαριστηθῇ.

 

[Quaeso]

Nam nec glorificatum est, quod claruit in hac parte, propter excellentem gloriam. -2 Cor 3,10

καὶ γὰρ οὐδὲ δεδόξασται τὸ δεδοξασμένον ἐν τούτῳ τῷ μέρει ἕνεκεν τῆς ὑπερβαλλούσης δόξης.

For even that which was glorious in this part was not glorified, by reason of the glory that excelleth.-DR

and indeed, what once seemed resplendent seems by comparison resplendent no longer, so much does the greater splendour outshine it. -Knox

Thank you, does in hac parte refer to the past ("that which shone in the past is not glorified [now]")?

 

[Pacifica]

I think haec pars refers to the past, yes, or more precisely to the ministratio mortis/damnationis that was carried out in the past (that is, the stuff that happened in the Old Testament, when things were done according to the letter rather than to the spirit).

 

[Pacifica]

But I see that some take in hac parte together with nec glorificatum est (rather than with quod claruit). That makes for a rather different sense, something like "that which used to be resplendant was not glorified in this respect."

 

[Quaeso]

Ecce enim hoc ipsum, secundum Deum contristari vos, quantam in vobis operatur sollicitudinem: sed defensionem, sed indignationem, sed timorem, sed desiderium, sed æmulationem, sed vindictam: in omnibus exhibuistis vos incontaminatos esse negotio. -2 Cor 7,11

For behold this selfsame thing, that you were made sorrowful according to God, how great carefulness it worketh in you; yea defence, yea indignation, yea fear, yea desire, yea zeal, yea revenge: in all things you have shewed yourselves to be undefiled in the matter.

ἰδοὺ γὰρ αὐτὸ τοῦτο, τὸ κατὰ Θεὸν λυπηθῆναι ὑμᾶς, πόσην κατειργάσατο ὑμῖν σπουδήν, ἀλλὰ ἀπολογίαν, ἀλλὰ ἀγανάκτησιν, ἀλλὰ φόβον, ἀλλὰ ἐπιπόθησιν, ἀλλὰ ζῆλον, ἀλλὰ ἐκδίκησιν. ἐν παντὶ συνεστήσατε ἑαυτοὺς ἁγνοὺς εἶναι ἐν τῷ πράγματι.

Thank you, are enim...ipsum, secundum...vos, and quantam...sollicitudenem all secondary clauses of Ecce? For sed, is that any different than aut?

 

[Pacifica]

Thank you, are enim...ipsum, secundum...vos, and quantam...sollicitudenem all secondary clauses of Ecce?

I'm not sure what you mean by "secondary clauses". In any case, ecce introduces this sentence:

hoc ipsum, secundum Deum contristari vos, quantam in vobis operatur sollicitudinem: sed defensionem, sed indignationem, sed timorem, sed desiderium, sed æmulationem, sed vindictam

That's an exclamatory sentence, where the interrogative quantam is used in an exclamatory way: "what great!"

The subject of the sentence is hoc ipsum, secundum Deum contristari vos; or the subject is hoc ipsum and the clause secundum Deum contristari vos comes as an apposition to it; things can be taken either way.

For sed, is that any different than aut?

Yes. Sed usually just means "but" but here it's more like "but also/what is more". Aut means "or". So the meanings are unrelated.

 

[Pacifica]

By the way, here's the latest instance of "present participle + esse" that I found to add to our collection:

obsecro Domine sit auris tua adtendens ad orationem servi tui et ad orationem servorum tuorum qui volunt timere nomen tuum et dirige servum tuum hodie et da ei misericordiam ante virum hunc (Neh. 1:11; see also earlier, in verse 6: fiat auris tua auscultans—not technically with esse, but similar)

 

[Quaeso]

I'm not sure what you mean by "secondary clauses"

Thank you. I see now it was a badly formed question. I thought that hoc ipsum might be a substantive clause (it's a direct object), and that secundum...vos might be a subject accusative (secondary) clause and that quantam...sollicitudenem might be an indirect question, all three governed by ecce.

Here's one for the collection:

Et erat prædicans in synagogis eorum, et in omni Galilæa, et dæmonia ejiciens. Mk. 1,39

καὶ ἦν κηρύσσων ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς αὐτῶν εἰς ὅλην τὴν Γαλιλαίαν καὶ τὰ δαιμόνια ἐκβάλλων.

 

[Pacifica]

I thought that hoc ipsum might be a substantive clause

Hoc ipsum isn't a substantive clause or even a clause at all. You need a verb (or at least the idea of one, in the case of ellipsis) to have a clause.

However, secundum Deum contristari vos is a substantive clause, either modified by hoc ipsum, or coming as an apposition to it; i.e., the literal meaning could be either:

1) this very (fact of) you-being-made-sorrowful-according-to-God
or
2) this very thing, (viz.) you being made sorrowful according to God

The message is the same either way.

 

[Pacifica]

Here's one for the collection:

And one more:

et adsumentes arma sua bellica sederunt per loca quae angusti itineris tramitem dirigunt inter montuosa et erant custodientes ea tota die et nocte (Jth. 7:5)

 

[Pacifica]

Also Jth. 12:16:

cor autem Holofernis concussum est erat enim ardens in concupiscentia eius

 

[Pacifica]

There's also this one, still in the Book of Judith (16:27):

erat autem diebus festis procedens cum gloria magna

But it refers to a repeated action rather than one continuous action.

 

[Quaeso]

Nam si is qui venit, alium Christum prædicat, quem non prædicavimus, aut alium spiritum accipitis, quem non accepistis: aut aliud Evangelium, quod non recepistis: recte pateremini.- 2 Cor 11.4

For if he that cometh preacheth another Christ, whom we have not preached; or if you receive another Spirit, whom you have not received; or another gospel which you have not received; you might well bear with him.

εἰ μὲν γὰρ ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἄλλον Ἰησοῦν κηρύσσει ὃν οὐκ ἐκηρύξαμεν, ἢ πνεῦμα ἕτερον λαμβάνετε ὃ οὐκ ἐλάβετε, ἢ εὐαγγέλιον ἕτερον ὃ οὐκ ἐδέξασθε, καλῶς ἀνείχεσθε.

Some newcomer preaches to you a different Christ, not the one we preached to you; he brings you a spirit other than the spirit you had from us, a gospel other than the gospel you received; you would do well, then, to be patient with me. -Knox

Would you say that si...pateremini is a mixed conditional? ἐρχόμενος I think must be in the present tense, but it looks like ἀνείχεσθε can be present indicative or imperfect indicative.

 

[Pacifica]

Would you say that si...pateremini is a mixed conditional?

Yes, and a bit of a weird one.

ἐρχόμενος I think must be in the present tense

It's a present participle.

it looks like ἀνείχεσθε can be present indicative or imperfect indicative.

I believe it's only imperfect and the present tense would be ἀνέχεσθε.

 

[Quaeso]

Thank you, so concerning the Vulgate perhaps something like a Present General for the protasis, and a Future Less Vivid for the apodosis?

 

[Pacifica]

Well, normally the imperfect subjunctive means present contrary-to-fact, but I don't know how that makes sense here. It's just weird. So yeah, maybe the sense is future less vivid.

 

[Pacifica]

Oh, actually... maybe the emphasis is on the fact that they aren't doing it?

 

[Pacifica]

Oh, actually... maybe the emphasis is on the fact that they aren't doing it?

I've looked at the context and that seems to fit what he said shortly before:

Utinam sustineretis modicum quid insipientiae meae, sed et supportare me: