Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 30/12/2004 19:25, C. Stirling Bartholomew wrote:

> On 12/30/04 9:14 AM, "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT qaya.org> wrote:
>
>  
>
> > Was this comma really in the original version of the Vulgate, or was it
> > added by a later editor? If so, how much later? After the KJV? It is not
> > in the Vulgate text which I have, but then this has no punctuation which
> > is probably an accurate reflection of what Jerome penned.
> >    
>
> Peter,
>
> The Stuttgart Vulgate has no punctuation, however E.J. Young (Isaiah NICOT,
> p333) states: 
>
> *****begin quote*****
> C. The Vulgate finds here six names: Admirabilis, Consiliarius,
> Deus, Fortis, Pater futuri saeculi, Princeps pacis.
>  

Well, what is Young's evidence? Did he simply read a modern punctuated 
edition uncritically? "Admirabilis" and "Fortis" are surely adjectives 
(from my rather limited knowledge of Latin, at least), which can of 
course be used as nouns, but in this kind of context where adjacent to 
nouns (and without the commas to guide) they are understood by default 
as adjectives. Hence I read the Vulgate with four names rather than six, 
in other words as a faithful translation of the Masoretic text

> D. The common English versions give five names to the Child.
>  E. The Child is probably given four names, and that for the
> following reasons:
>  1. The last two names consist each of two members, the first
> of which in each instance is in the construct state followed by the
> dependent genitive. The first two names also stand closely together, the
> first in each instance being in the position of an appositional genitive.
>  2. The Masoretic accentuation supports the position that there
> are four names.
>  3. If there are four names, a remarkable symmetry is obtained.
> Each name thus consists of two members, and each half of the
> verse of two names.
>  4. At this point note should be taken of the remark of Herntrich
> that in each name one of the two words always describes the
> earthly side and the other the "metaphysical" side of the govern¬
> ment. In the first two names, the designation of deity is first,
> whereas in the last two it is the second member of the name.
>
> ***end quote***
>
> On Latin word order, Gildersleeve&Lodge #291 "When the attribute is
> emphatic, it is commonly put before the substantive, otherwise in classical
> Latin ordinarily after it. But see #676." #676 "An adjective usually
> precedes, but often follows the word to which it belongs ..."
>
>  
i.e. Admirabilis might be emphatic but Fortis less so?

> In light of all this why do we find in E.J. Young the following statement?
> "The Vulgate finds here six names: Admirabilis, Consiliarius,Deus, Fortis,
> Pater futuri saeculi, Princeps pacis ."
>
>  
Can anyone else answer this? Could the answer be somewhere in 
traditional interpretation of the Vulgate?

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.6 - Release Date: 28/12/2004