Re: The last enemy

Ph. D. wrote:
> Mark J. Reed scripsit:
>
>>
>> For those who want other reference points, here's the original Greek:
>>
>> εσχατος  εχθρος καταργειται ο θανατος
>>
>> And the Vulgate:
>>
>> novissima autem inimica destruetur mors omnia enim subiecit sub
>> pedibus eius cum autem dicat
>
>
> For some reason, the Vulgate starts the next verse
> number after "dicat," while all the other versions
> start the next verse between "mors" and "omnia."
The version of Vulgate on the Vatican website has the verse division
between "mors" and 'omnia" thus:
{quote]
26 Novissima autem inimica destruetur mors;
27 omnia enim subiecit sub pedibus eius. Cum autem dicat: "Omnia
subiecta sunt", sine dubio praeter eum, qui subiecit ei omnia.
{/quote}
---------------------------------------------------

Mark J. Reed wrote:
 > Well, we have the original, and I don't think the Greek "eschatos"
 > shares that ambiguity.  So I don't think the intent is a matter of
 > opinion.

Quite so, the Greek is quite clear, especially both in the use of
"eschatos" and as regards the context in which the verse occurs.

 > But i find the choice of "novissima" to translate it in
 > Latin interesting.  That would seem to match the "most recent"
 > interpretation, no?

No. In classical Latin "novissimus" could mean "hindmost, rearmost"; the
word was regularly used to describe those at the rear of an army. All
other enemies have been destroyed; the last one remaining at the rear
when all others have been defeated is _death_ - hence "novissima."
----------------------------------------------

Ph. D. wrote:
 > Mark J. Reed scripsit:
 >
 >>
 >> . . .  If you'd been reading the thread you would see
 >> that I sent the Greek version to the list already, along with Jerome's
 >> Vulgar Latin translation of it.
 >
 > I believe Jerome's Vulgate is written in Classical Latin, not Vulgar
 > Latin.

Not exactly classical, but certainly not Vulgar Latin which AFAIK is not
found in any written form apart from odd surviving bits of graffiti.

Jerome's Latin retains all the grammatical apparatus of the classical
language which Vulgar Latin did not. Jerome's Latin is literary; it is
usually termed 'Ecclesiastical Latin' to distinguish it from the high
classical of Caesar, Cicero etc. The more recent editions of the Vulgate
have tended to move towards a more classical mode of Latin.

 > It's called the Vulgate because it's the
 > "public" or "people's" version, not that it's written in the
 > common spoken language of the public.

Yes, the verb "vulgare" means 'to publish'. The Vulgate is the
_[officially] published_ version.

 > Both words derive from "vulgus":  the people or the public.

Yep - but the words don't mean the same. The Vulgate never was and is
not written in Vulgar Latin. In fact: "Novissima autem inimica
destruetur mors" is perfectly acceptable Classical Latin. Vulgar Latin
had no analytical passive forms so 'destruetur' would not be possible if
it were Vulgar Latin.

--
Ray
==================================
ray@carolandray.plus.com
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
There's none too old to learn.
[WELSH PROVERB]

Reply