[B-Greek] Phil 2:11

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Oct 19 08:48:58 EDT 2003


This is something of a quibble, inasmuch as the argument turns on how the
Latin of two Vulgate versions should be understood grammatically. I was
somewhat hesitant about responding to it at all, but inasmuch as it
represents a solution to the question of the subject and predicate noun in
Phil 2:11b--or even a hint that the question can be "finessed," I've
decided a response is called for.

At 3:17 PM -0400 10/18/03, Richard Ghilardi wrote:
>Dear B-Greekers,
>
>Carl closed the other thread which really concerned Jn 20:31.

In fact, it was never formally closed; I SUGGESTED, since it was becoming
repetitive, its discontinuation unless somebody had some new argument on
the question; in fact there have been a few contributions afterwards.

>But I have  something new to add to this thread on Php 2:11.
>
>KAI PASA GLOSSA EXOMOLOGHSHTAI hOTI KURIOS IHSOUS CRISTOS EIS DOXAN QEOU
>PATROS.
>
>Two other possibilities are suggested by the Old and New Vulgates
>respectively (age before beauty):
>
>et omnis lingua confiteatur quia Dominus Iesus Christus in gloria est Dei
>Patris.
>
><<and every tongue make its confession because the Lord Jesus Christ is
>in the glory of God the Father.>>
>
>Here hOTI is taken as causal, "the Lord Jesus Christ" (not "Jesus Christ"
>or even "Lord Jesus") is taken as the subject and EIS = EN (which it
>often does in the NT). The final prepositional phrase does not give the
>ground for the confession but realm or state of the Lord Jesus Christ
>which prompts the tongue to confess. I think this is a very unlikely
>understanding, especially causal hOTI and EIS = EN.

It's true that this Latin version offers a dubious reading of EIS DOXAN
QEOU PATROS. On the other hand, I don't think hOTI is really understood as
causal here; although QUIA in classical Latin does tend to be used
primarily as a causal conjunction, I've observed that it's not at all
uncommonly used in later Latin--in the Vulgate--as a conjunction
introducing a noun clause, as instanced in the following verses of Job:

Job 7:7 memento quia ventus est vita mea
Job 10:7 et scias quia nihil impium fecerim
Job 10:13 licet haec celes in corde tuo tamen scio quia universorum memineris
Job 19:6 saltim nunc intellegite quia Deus non aequo iudicio adflixerit me
Job 30:23 scio quia morti tradas me ubi constituta domus est omni viventi

Actually conjunctive QUIA derives from a neuter plural of the relative
pronoun just as conjunctive QUOD is derived from the neuter singular of the
relative pronoun, and both are used in more or less the same variety of
ways as English "that," German "dass," and Greek hOTI.

So, in the Old Vulgate version cited above I think that QUIA is simply
introducing a noun clause object of CONFITEATUR; to that extent the
translated clause does reflect the Greek, even if EIS DOXAN ... is
misconstrued.

>The New Vulagte has it:
>
>et omnis lingua confiteatur:
>"Dominus Iesus Christus!",
>in gloriam Dei Patris.
>
><<and every tongue exclaim in praise:
>"Lord Jesus Christ!",
>to the glory of God the Father.>>
>
>Here hOTI = hOTI recitativus, i.e., as a marker of direct speech so that
>the following words are an exclamation of the confessing tongue: "Lord
>Jesus Christ!". "Gloria" becomes "gloriam" so that we may now translate
>"TO the glory of God" rather than "IN the glory of God". I favor this
>interpretation of the Greek above all the others because it cuts the
>Gordian knot of what to take as the subject of the sentence, KURIOS
>IHSOUS CRISTOS. THERE IS NO SENTENCE, only an exclamation of praise.

I rather doubt that this is how the Latin of the New Vulgate should be
understood, although I won't say dogmatically that it couldn't be
understood that way. I think rather that this Latin version conveys the
Greek phrasing KURIOS IHSOUS CRISTOS EIS DOXAN QEOU PATROS with maximal
economy; in the Latin, as in the Greek, the copula linking DOMINUS with
IESUS CHRISTUS and KURIOS with IHSOUS CRISTOS respectively is elliptical
but implicit. If it were not a sentence then the adverbial phrase IN
GLORIAM DEI PATRIS serves no grammatical function; if it were an
acclamation, one might expect the nouns to be in the vocative rather than
in the nominative; if it is an exclamation, then I think that we must
understand the copula to be implicit.

On this view the New Vulgate does not "cut the Gordian knot" at all, if by
that is meant that it resolves the question of which is subject and which
is predicate in the hOTI clause of Phil 2:11; rather, what it actually does
is to reproduce the structure and word-order of the Greek in a "classical"
instance of "literal" translation.
-- 

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/



More information about the B-Greek mailing list