Quid est Veritas? » Blog Archive

Not Robbery

In the Breviary, we say the Philippians 2 Canticle fairly often (I Vespers of Sunday Week I and III, to be precise). It’s beautiful in how it describes the Incarnation and the Ascension of Christ.

In the English Liturgy of the Hours, we read:

Though he was in the form of God,
Jesus did not deem equality with God
something to be grapsed at.

Rather, he emptied himself
and took the form of a slave,
being born in the likeness of men.

This is close to what many modern translations read (e.g., I believe the NIV, the NAB, and the RSV), but in the New Vulgate (which matches the Vulgate) the first line reads:

[Iesus] Qui cum in forma Dei esset
non rapinam arbitratus est
esse se aequalem Deo.

That is,

[Jesus] Who, since he was in the form of God
thought that it was not robbery
that he was equal to God.

Doesn’t that sound like almost the opposite idea? In the modern English, it sounds like Jesus was in the form of God but didn’t even begin to imagine that he could be equal with God. In the Latin, it sounds like Jesus was in the form of God and of course he knew that he was equal with God.

To be fair, translating that cum in the Latin is a little tough (the Greek lacks it for simple linguistic reasons but matches the Latin perfectly otherwise). Because esset is subjunctive, cum doesn’t refer to simple time (i.e., it does not just mean “when”), but since there’s not a hint of a tamen or anything else of the sort, the cum can’t be concessive (i.e., it doesn’t mean “though,” which is exactly what the English says). Rather, it seems like it should be causal (i.e., “because” or “since”). However, since the Greek lacks it, it may be better to omit it in English. Thus, something like “Being in the form of God …,” as I believe the Douay-Rheims has it, might be best.

This entry was posted on Thursday, January 24th, 2008 at 7:23 PM and is filed under bible, latin, translation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

5 Responses to “Not Robbery”

stephen Posted January 26th, 2008 at 5:05 PM.	This needs to go to the Congregation so they can update the next English version of the LOTH — that and my paper on how they messed up the Feast of St. Scholastica with that edit in the Office of Readings… Dylan, how exactly does “rapinam arbitratus” work there? The cognates are very interesting. E.g., “There would be no arbitration of rape that…”
Dylan Posted February 8th, 2008 at 12:41 PM.	rapinam = “robbery” as a direct object. It is related to the verb rapire, which means “to seize,” “to grasp,” etc. So, it is related etymologically to “rape.” arbitratus est is the perfect of arbitror, which is a deponent verb. So, it means “he thought,” “he regarded,” “he esteemed,” “he judged,” etc.
thomas bushnell, bsg Posted February 9th, 2008 at 9:57 PM.	I’m afraid your translation is incorrect. “esse se aequalum est” is the object of “rapinum”. You are being misled by an assumption that the Latin should be translated into English in the same word order. The correct translation of the Latin is: “He did not thing that being equal to God was a thing to be seized.” Moreover, the Greek makes this transparently clear. The word translated “rapinum” in Latin is “arpagmon” in Greek. The Greek word does NOT mean “robbery” but rather, “a thing which ought to be seized/desired”; and that force is one possible meaning to “rapinum” as well. And so, if you want to preserve the Latin word order, you get “He did not thing it ought to be seized/grasped to be equal to God.” Moreover, perhaps you might read Patristic commentaries on this? Or consider context? Fretting about the force of “cum” here, by the way, is irrelevant; the word does not show up in the Greek, which doesn’t need a conjunction because of differences in normal Greek grammar.
thomas bushnell, bsg Posted February 9th, 2008 at 9:59 PM.	oh, and “cum” most certainly can be concessive even without any “tamen” or other words that force a concessive meaning.
Dylan Posted February 9th, 2008 at 11:14 PM.	arpagmon can mean “something to be grasped,” but it can also mean the act of grasping (robbery (active sense)), the act of having something grasped from oneself (robbery (passive sense)), or the thing grasped (the plunder from the robbery). Regarding esse se aequlaem Deo, we must also be clear that “equality with God” (as a noun) is misleading since it is a verbal phrase. Moreover, it’s also more than just “being equal to God.” We can’t forget that se. We’re not speaking about “to be equal with God” in general. Rather, we’re speaking about the fact of Christ’s being equal with God: “That he was equal to God,” “for him to be equal to God,” etc. The only way to use “something to be grasped” would be if you wanted to convey the sense that Jesus did not need to grasp equality with God (because he has it). However, this does not do justice to the first part of the verse since it remains ambiguous about Christ’s status, i.e., all it says is that he won’t be grasping equality with God. The first part of the verse makes it clear that Christ’s equality with God can’t be grasped because he has it by nature. So, arpagmon should be translated as referring to something which “has been grasped” (plunder) or the act of grasping itself (robbery). cum can be concessive without tamen or tum or the like, but context would make that obvious. Since the causal meaning is just as likely (more likely in the context of the whole canticle), I don’t see how it can be concessive without something to indicate such. Also, let’s get that “not” in the right place since non (or “ouk”) is not negating the main verb arbitratus est but rather the noun rapinam. So, “he thought it [was] not” rather than “he did not think.”

Not Robbery

5 Responses to “Not Robbery”

Leave a Reply