Below are the first three pages of our Latin Reader. Read the Schmidt Posting blog here for commentary on page three. Feel free to leave requests under this or the Schmidt Post for words you would like to see in the vocabulary gloss!
Tag: Latin Reader
-
As promised, sero maius quam numquam, here is the second weekly installment of Schmidt Posting, where we walk through potential questions and quandaries which arise in our reading and progressive publication of our Latin reader of Sebastian Schmidt’s Sacra Biblia et cetera…
As always, make sure to download this week’s Latin Reader (week 2) to read along!
- Our first yet subtle point of note is the well placed semi-colons at the end of the first two clauses, “Et factum est in istis diebus; Venit Jesus de Nazareth Galilaeae; et baptizatus est a Joanne in Jordane.” One might appreciate the punchy, staccato, matter of fact cadence this lends the text. Schmidt added these semi-colons; they draw out the trifold structure of the 9th verse of Mark; it even possibly reflects a trinitarian confession as to how these events unfolded. (1) “And it happened in these days,” from the birds-eye, Father in Heaven view; (2) “Jesus of Nazareth went to Galilee,” the second person of the Trinity begins His earthly ministry; (3) “and he was baptized by John in the Jordan,” the Holy Ghost anointing God the Son as sent by His Father. You tell me, am I reaching here?
- “dilectus” is an interesting choice for “well-beloved,” substituting the Koine ἀγαπητός in verse 11. Surely “amicus” would have sufficed, but for Schmidt it is possibly too plain. Yea, of course, God the Father loves His only Son as amicus would aptly convey, but dilectus comes with a bare, literal semantic core of selection in addition to overtones then used to mean loving or esteeming. By Schmidt’s use of “dilectus” for the descriptor by which God the Father makes His Son known, we not only understand that Jesus Christ is beloved by His Father, but that He is also prized and distinguished by His Father to be His selection above all others. Such a rich word as “dilectus” is not to be overlooked when closely reading the Latin translation of Greek Scripture. One might even dare to say that dilectus is more rich in meaning than ἀγαπητός!
- “in quo complacuit perplacuit Mihi” is certainly one of the more confusing lines in Schmidt’s translation-commentary. To understand why, a quick review of the original Koine is required: we read for this clause ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα… that’s it. A three word phrase which becomes five in the Latin. Naturally, we see Schmidt employing the Latin ablative doing the work of what the Greek uses the dative for. Interestingly enough, here is an instance where we can potentially detect the MS tradition that Schmidt is using: by using in quo instead of, say, in te, Schmidt could likely be following the reading of the Textus Receptus which uses the relative pronoun ἐν ᾧ instead of other MSs that read ἐν σοὶ, utilizing the second person pronoun. Yet, MS traditions aside, the insertion of a second verb in such close semantic proximity begs exasperation. What information are we meant to get out of perplacuit that complacuit fails to convey? Moreover, why insert the first person pronoun Mihi in the text when it very well could have been elided, and even moreso why not include “me” in italics as an addition to the original Greek which does not need ἐμοὶ? Count me stumped, Schmidt!
- The comment “ad aggrediendum tentationibus officium suum Messianum, superando et subjiciendo sibi diabolum” explains for us wherefore the Holy Ghost had to impel Christ to go out into the desert: for undertaking his Messianic duty by means of trials, [namely] his overcoming and subduing [of] the devil. The syntax here is perhaps being stretched. We begin with a prepositional gerund construction “for undertaking,” the direct object of which is “His Messianic duty,” and the ablative “trials” tells us the means by which this undertaking will occur. Yet then Schmidt shifts us into what I can only identify as a double dative construction, “for the overcoming and for the subjecting for himself the devil” when translated literally in its original, ‘wooden’ word order. In my translation of the entire editorial insertion above I supplied the word “namely” to convey, in my interpretation, that this double dative construction is meant to explain to us what these trials are. A major objection that could be made to this reading is the fact that I have identified the tentationibus as an ablative of manner whereas superando et subjiciendo sibi is a double dative construction. Therefore a plain case of appositional predication is lacking here, and I am forced to argue that there is semantic predication. It is well possible that what we have here is ‘bad’ Latin on Schmidt’s part, and superando et subjiciendo sibi would have been more properly written in the ablative superando et subjiciendo se or sese. As we see, the case being built here is dependent upon several plausabilities. How would you read the text?
- “neque tamen modo ullo vel dubitando et sibi timendo peccavit, sed victor evasit” is another head scratcher. One might render it “And nevertheless by not any mean or by doubting and by fearing to himself did he sin, but he appeared the victor.” In doing so, sibi is read as dative while the gerunds this time are kept in the ablative in relation to modo ullo at the start of the clause. We therefore have just a dative of reference in the use of the third person reflexive pronoun. While not impossible, one wonders if this is how the previous sibi (see bullet point above) is meant to be taken. We would then wind up with a clearer case for apposition with superando et subjiciendo remaining in the ablative case to act as the predicates for tentationibus and sibi just clarifying that these actions are Christ’s.
- Why “Unde” is not italicized beats me. Neither the TR or other MSs to my knowledge include a spatial adverb with the original Koine διηκόνουν such as ὅθεν.
- “Unde Angeli boni Ipsi tanquam victori Messiae ab illis magis agnito etiam, submiserunt se ultro et ministrarunt Ipsi” is a classic instance of Schmidt taking the liberty of making what was a five word phrase καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι διηκόνουν αὐτῷ and stretching it into eighteen in Latin. “Whence good angels, just as likewise the victor Messiah was recognized by the Magi, voluntarily placed themselves under and ministered to Him.” By keeping my translation as italicized as Schmidt’s Latin one might see how much information is added here.
- Verso is a semantically dense verb that can have several connotations and so in the vocabulary gloss on page 2 I have included the options for (1) to turn, its literal meaning, (2) to be busy, which is a meaning more common in the passive voice use of the verb + the preposition “in” and so can be read as “because he was busied in/occupied with Judaea throughout everywhere,” or (3) to disturb. While (3) makes plenty of sense contextually in the sense that Our Lord was frequently having to stay on the move for various reasons, persecution or popularity alike, (2) has a stronger attestation for usage in terms of frequency. I should certainly not wish to restrain Schmidt to the purely Classical precedents of Latin expression, however, and therefore remain ambivalent as to whether he is making full use of semantic distinction by applying the verb in a less seen context with the (3) definition.
- “poenitentiam agite” is a great phrase with much usage in several contexts in antiquity, yet here I have elected to gloss ago as ‘to exercise.’ Simply and colloquially, poenitentiam agite means ‘to repent.’ The emphasis I tried to make by having it translated as ‘to exercise repentance’ was several, both to stress the continual, present aspect of the imperative command and how it reflects proper theology of sanctification, while also reminding the translator that Christ speaks this command for His followers to do, and so we are therefore able to read this command as one which involves the believer as a vessel for the Holy Spirit to do this good work in him.
-
Below are the first two pages of our Latin Reader. Read the blog, Schmidt Posting, here for commentary on page 2!
-
As promised, this is the first installment of our general assessment of Sebastian Schmidt’s Biblia Sacra… Additis Capitum Sumariis et Partionibus, starting with the Gospel of Mark. The reasoning for choosing this book was several, namely (1) the dearth of resources for Classical Lutherans online who are not yet proficient in Latin yet have their fundamentals well-rounded in order to wrestle with so-called live texts[1], (2) a Gospel, being arguably one of the four most familiar books in the Book, should lend itself to sight-reading by this fact and therefore alleviate common translation mental blocks, (3) it is the shortest of these four books and so therefore lends itself to accomplishment (on both my part and yours!) quickest, and (4) it is, by the fact of (3), the most suitable for a test-run.
So, what does this all mean?
In essence, this Latin reader project of the Secundum Marcum Sanctum Evangelium is a project in a trial stage, to not only establish a free online resource for the benefit of the Church but also to dive into this work of Sebastian Schmidt and see what it might have to offer the Church theologically. Admittedly, I am no theologian, but am merely a fallible royal priest armed with the Word of God. At times, my observations from the text might wind up as open questions, answers for which I would be most grateful to discuss down in the comments.
And yet, without further ado, let us begin. (Read along with the Latin Reader, Page 1, published here)
- I would be remiss not to first mention the boldness eminent in Schmidt’s addition Nimirum, an adverb meaning ‘doubtless, indisputably,’ at the start of verse Marc.I.2. This is to be rendered in the English as “Indisputably just as it was written in the Prophets.” The adverb is a contraction of the phrase ne mirum, which takes the accusative supine as exclamatory and would be aptly translated by the colloquial ‘no doubt!’
- Next, from the midst of the second and then at the start of the third verse, we get the correlative uno… in altero. While this may appear not-so-correlative at first with the former lacking a preposition, this may be easily accounted for as a rhetorical application of variatio, or by the fact that ‘in Prophetis’ preceeds uno and so therefore Schmidt may have seen the preposition as already accounted for in such close apposition.
- Then, with “Vox clamantis in deserto est” we see the first syntactical completion editorial by Schmidt in this series. For his purposes, the mere participial ‘clamantis’ would suffice, but the existential est needs to proclaim: “There is a voice of one crying[2] in the desert”! Connected with this quotation from Isaiah in a footnote of the original MS are also the appearances of this Scripture in both Matthew III.3, Luke III.4, and John I.23: in the first Gospel the Latin appears composed by Schmidt as “Vox clamantis est in deserto;”, whereas for the physician he writes it as “Vox clamantis in deserto est, dicens,” and John’s rendering is written “Ego sum vox clamantis in deserto,” all while the original situs in Isaiah appears as “Vox clamantis est in deserto.” In my personal opinion, I would deem the original and so therefore that then found in Matthew’s Gospel as less emphatic in contrast to the existential proclamation made by the word order found in Mark I.3.
- The next point for our consideration is partly covered in the grammatical commentary given on the first page of the Latin Reader. The clause for consideration in particular is the dependent clause ut illa implerentur, but the bigger question is from where does it find its independent clause? That is to say, the use of the word ut+a subjunctive mood verb means that we are dealing with a substantive clause of some sort, which can be safely and plainly translated formulaically as “that,” yet we do not know the antecedent to our “that” nor whence it comes. Here, I argue, we have a substantive clause acting nominally, that is to say, as a noun in predicate position to praedictiones. The translation, then, should be wrought “For according to these Prophetic proclamations, namely that these things would be fulfilled, John was there, baptizing in the desert.” In addition to this, however, we must locate the main clause, and equally important, the main verb which sets this apposite substantive clause of result in the secondary sequence with the imperfect subjunctive verb implerentur. Here the options are between positing an unexpressed fuit in the preceding Nam clause or to place the main clause with fuit Joannes; while the former is semantically closer and for that reason more intuitive, one wonders why Schmidt did not include fuit in his italicized clause preceding the substantive ut clause here: perhaps the verbal idea in praedictiones is already pregnant enough with the past, secondary tense for his estimation that it needed not an express fuit.
- Then, bookending the verse, we have Schmidt’s further interjection that the baptism was “of one believing in the Christ, whom he was saying had already come, and That One about Whom he would preach”: in the grammatical commentary, I have posited that there is an elided passive present infinitive iri, as the clause et mox praedicaturum Ipsum is co-ordinate with jam venisse due to the conjunction et, both clauses being in indirect discourse off of the verb dicebat. Thus praedicaturum iri would be a future passive to demonstrate subsequent, future time in secondary sequence; had the main verb been present tense dicit, the future passive infinitive would still have been rendered praedicaturum iri but would have been translated “will preach” instead of the secondary sequence necessitating “would preach,” as in, “about to preach.” We could reasonably imagine that the direct statement was ‘mox praedicaturus Ipsum!’
- The insertion that “et omnes baptizantur qui volebant” is interesting, implying that there may have been a heresy abound in Schmidt’s day that claimed involuntary baptism saved.
- “quae per baptismum ipsis remittebantur confessis” is one of the more theologically interesting glosses at first glance, as it sets up what Schmidt furthers by the end of this section of Scripture: the difference between John’s and Christ’s baptisms. Here, we are told that the confessed sins, the antecedent of quae, are remitted per baptismum ipsis… confessis: that is, they are remitted on account of the baptism because of the confessions themselves. Whereas in v.8 we read “Nam ego quidem tanquam minister baptizo vos aqua: Ipse vero baptizabit vos Spiritu Sancto tanquam baptismi Dominus.”: “For I indeed baptized ye with water as a minister: but indeed That Man will baptize ye with the Holy Spirit as the Lord of baptism.” For fear of overly-extrapolating from this evidence, allow me to simply paraphrase: Schmidt wants us to read John’s baptism as being merely a baptism of water, on account of which confessed sins are remitted because of the confessions themselves, whereas the baptism of Christ is a baptism of the Holy Spirit as only the Lord of baptism may give. A solitary comment occurs to me that Schmidt may just as well be saying that the baptism of the Holy Spirit remits all sins and not merely those confessed at the time of the baptism.
- For the participle indutus I have glossed the following “induo: to put on oneself, as in the Gr. middle usage of ἐνδύω, see Aeneid.” With the room here to do so, I shall explain that this is a reference to the Vergilian adaptation of Homeric language in Latin poetry. For those unaware, the Greek language possessed three distinct voices, not merely the active and passive as found in Latin, but a third, middle voice. Without going into too much detail, this middle voice could express an action done by oneself with reflexive reference to one’s self, such as, putting on one’s clothes or armor. It is in the latter case especially that Homer expresses his heroes suiting up for battle, and so the Latin language, thanks to Vergil’s Greek literacy, found itself able to occasionally borrow the morphologically passive participle such as indutus and expressing the middle sense out of it. An argument for induo being a loanword from the Greek ἐνδύω may well be possible.
- textus is a curiosity for its number: why singular? What is its referent? John? The hide? The camel? If we went with the first answer, we would be forcing a middle-voice reading here where it is unprecedented. The second might well make sense, but the problem presents itself as to why it occurred in the plural pilis first and then in the singular. Perhaps semantically hair, as the singular pilus represents, needs to first be pleated into what can then be aggregately referred to as the hair after appearing in the form of a garment.
- For our final point of discussion I bring to mind the italicized phrase sicut servus aliquis. The question here remains whether Schmidt is breaking-in, so to say, with his own narratorial voice, or if the implied verb is to be imagined in John’s voice: “as if he were some slave,” esset, or “as if I were some slave,” essemus. For which would you argue?
- The liveliness of Schmidt’s Biblia Sacra is quite relevant for our purposes here, as there are many live questions as to just how he uses his editorializing methodology, not only theologically but also linguistically: is Schmidt “butting-in” with his own sort of narratorial voice-over? Or are his words meant to blend, thematically and grammatically, in with the text of Holy Writ? ↑
- I have here italicized one due to the fact that whereas Greek was able to use a standalone participle such as is seen in the Septuagint’s Φωνὴ βοῶντος I must stress that this is unfounded for Classical Latin and should therefore be recognized as a Grecism imposed on the text. However, even to render the text as “the voice of crying” would be incorrect as then the participle clamantis would be acting as a gerund which more appropriately would have been written as vox clamandi. Yet admittedly the original βοῶντος was not an articular infinitive written as τοῦ βοὰειν and so clamandi is not entirely warranted. We now see how Schmidt may have arrived at his decision. ↑
-
Below is the first page of the Latin Reader of Sebastian Schmidt’s Secundum Marcum Sanctum Evangelium. A discussion of this material shall follow soon today. In the meantime, happy translating!