If you’ve been following Nancy Pelosi’s comments lately and the subsequent remarks by bishops and those in the blogosphere, you may have seen that the blog “Aliens in this World” has posted a translation of what St Augustine said.

A friend sent the Latin to me:

Utrum quod in utero formatum adhuc est, animatum posset intellegi.

80. (21, 22–25) Si autem litigabunt duo viri, et percusserint mulierem in utero habentem, et exierit infans eius nondum formatus; detrimentum patietur, quantum indixerit vir mulieris, et dabit cum postulatione.

Mihi videtur significationis alicuius causa dici haec, magis quam Scripturam circa huiusmodi facta occupatam. Nam si illud attenderet, ne praegnans mulier percussa in abortum compelleretur, non poneret duos litigantes viros, cum possit et ab uno hoc admitti, qui cum ipsa muliere litigaverit, vel etiam non litigaverit, sed alienae posteritati nocere volendo id fecerit. Quod vero non formatum puerperium noluit ad homicidium pertinere, profecto nec hominem deputavit quod tale in utero geritur.

Hic de anima quaestio solet agitari, utrum quod formatum non est, ne animatum quidem possit intellegi, et ideo non sit homicidium, quia nec examinatum dici potest, si adhuc animam non habebat.

Sequitur enim et dicit: Si autem formatum fuerit, dabit animam pro anima. Ubi quid aliud intellegitur, nisi, et ipse morietur? Nam hoc et in caeteris ex hac occasione iam praecipit: Oculum pro oculo, dentem pro dente, manum pro manu, pedem pro pede, combustionem pro combustione, vulnus pro vulnere, livorem pro livore: talionis videlicet aequitate. Quae Lex ideo constituit, ut demonstraret quae vindicta debeatur. Nisi enim per Legem sciretur quid vindictae deberetur, unde sciretur quid venia relaxaret, ut dici posset: Dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris? Debitores igitur Lege monstrantur, ut quando ignoscitur appareat quid dimittatur. Neque enim debita dimitteremus, nisi quid nobis deberetur Lege indice disceremus. Si ergo illud informe puerperium iam quidem fuerit, sed adhuc quodammodo informiter animatum (quoniam magna de anima quaestio non est praecipitanda indiscussae temeritate sententiae), ideo Lex noluit ad homicidium pertinere, quia nondum dici potest anima viva in eo corpore quod sensu caret, si talis est in carne nondum formata, et ideo nondum sensibus praedita. Quod autem dixit: Et dabit cum postulatione quod maritus mulieris, informi excluso, dandum constituerit, non est in promptu intellegere: quippe, quod graecus habet, pluribus modis intellegitur, et tolerabilius cum postulatione dictum est, quam si aliud diceretur. Fortassis enim postulabit ut det, ut eo modo satis Deo faciat, etiamsi maritus mulierve non expetat.

This is my own rendering:

Whether what is not yet formed in the womb can be understood as being ensouled.

80. (21, 22-25) “If two men quarrel and strike a pregnant woman, and the child (infans) that is not yet formed is expelled … he will pay whatever penalty the woman’s husband declares, and he will render it upon request.”

It seems to me that this is said for the sake of signifying something rather than that Scripture is concerned about deeds of this kind. For if did address it, so that a pregnant woman who has been struck would not be forced to miscarry, it would not suppose that there were two men fighting since this could also be perpetrated by one, who fought with the woman herself, or even if he did not fight with her, still willingly acted to harm another’s offspring. But it did not wish to regard the death of an unformed child as homicide, nor did it think what is borne in the womb to be a man.

Here the question regarding the soul usually comes up, whether what is not formed cannot be understood as ensouled, and therefore it would not be homicide since it cannot be said to be determined, if it still did not have a soul.

For it goes on to say: “If it was been formed, he will give a life for a life.” What else then should be understood except that he also should die? For it has established this already in the other cases of this type: “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, a burn for a burn, a would for a wound, a bruise for a bruise”: namely the justice of retribution. So the law established it to show what retributions would be owed. For unless it is known by the Law what retributions are owed, how would it be known what a pardon looses, as can be said: “Forgive us our debts as we forgive those in debt to us”? Debtors, therefore, are shown by the Law, as when it is not known it would be apparent what would be forgiven. For we would not forgive debts unless we had learned what is owed to us as the Law indicates. If therefore the offspring was unformed, but still in a certain way formlessly ensouled (since the great question concerning the soul must not be bound by the fear of an untested opinion), therefore the Law has did not wish to regard it as homicide, because it cannot yet be said that there is a living soul in a body that lacks sense, if it is such, not yet formed in the flesh, and therefore not yet provided with the senses. But, however, it said: “And he will render upon request what the woman’s husband established would be given for the expelled unformed offspring.” It is not easy to understand: naturally “Asioma,” what the Greek holds, is understood in several ways, and “upon request” is said to be more tolerable, than if it were said to be something else. For perhaps he would offer to render something, in order to satisfy God in this way, even if the husband or the woman did not ask.

I didn’t have a lot of time, so there may be errors.

Today is my mother’s birthday (also the optional memorial of the dedication of St. Mary Major, though the basilica is older than my mom). The occasion reminds me that I’ve used one’s mother’s birthday as an example before in a discussion about interpreting the Gospel for preaching.

Basically, my point was this: We need to avoid an approach that makes the stories in the Gospel generic. They’re not fables or fairy-tales. They contain archetypes, but they’re archetypal only secondarily. They are only exemplary because they are first concrete and unique occurrences in history.¹ When interpreting the Annunciation, for instance, we can’t let our preaching reduce it to a model of being called by God to do something that seems impossible or hard. Yes, it is a model, and the model applies to all of us, whereas none of us is going to be called to be the Mother of God. Nevertheless, it is first a unique event. The Annunciation is not only a species of the call-scene genus, it is more like the perfect form to which all other call-scenes are what they are by resemblance.

In a similar way, today is important to me not because it is an instance of “one’s mother’s birthday” but because it is my mom’s birthday.

---

1 Have you ever wondered why the Bible includes things that seem completely irrelevant at times? Why, for instance, do we need to know that the slave’s name was Malchus? Because that’s how it happened. Those little lines are powerful connections with people and events, not concepts.

Here’s a bad joke I came up with just now:

Q: What did Pontius Pilate say when St Thomas Aquinas asked him to prove Christ’s divinity?

A: “I find no cause in him” (John 18:38).

A commenter on my previous post on Philippians 2:6 has brought up some good points and moved me to look into the question of its meaning more deeply. While I still think the key is translating the second part as a verbal phrase (”that he was equal with God” / “for him to be equal with God”) rather than a nominal phrase (”equality with God”), I can see how “robbery” may not be the best translation.

“Who, being in the form of God, regarded the fact that he was equal with God not something to be clung to.” This could also work, perhaps. Even “something to be snatched/grasped” could be used assuming the rest is translated aptly, but I’m not ready to write off “robbery” yet completely.

Thanks for the lively discussion and for making me come to better knowledge of this passage.

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.

I returned the other day from the Society of Biblical Literature’s annual convention, which was in San Diego this year. I had never been before, but I went with some of the other seminarians from Kenrick and Dr. Kitz, our Old Testament professor.

I enjoyed the conference very much, and some of the talks I attended were very good. At a minimum, almost all of them were thought-provoking. My overall impression is that Catholics have a huge advantage in interpreting the Bible for several important reasons: the living Tradition¹, the Magisterium, the sacraments², having the lived experience of ritual and liturgy, etc.

There was one talk on morality as presented in the Gospel according to John, which was particularly good. The thesis of the presentation was basically that scholars usually presume that John contains no moral teaching (other than, obviously, the Mandatum), but that, in fact, because of the genre of the Gospel as a biography, the emphasis of the entire work is on following the example of Jesus. This is heading in the direction indicated by Veritatis Splendor, which says “The way and at the same time the content of this perfection [of the moral life] consist in the following of Jesus” (19).

From a philosophical position, it’s nice to see somebody who can see Positivism for what it is. I’m not surprised that people don’t see “moral teaching” unless it’s spelled out in the form of “do this; don’t do that” commandments. While it would be impossible for this one talk to encompass the full consequences of the direction in which it was heading, it brought to my mind the following considerations.

The question about morality is summed up in the Synoptic Gospels by the question of the rich young man: “Good teacher, what must I do to have eternal life?” In John, the question does not need to be asked, and, in fact, Jesus gives the same answer in both the Synoptics and in John. In the Synoptics, he replies “keep the commandments,” but ultimately his answer is “follow me.” In John, he tells us, “I am the [...] life.” Thus, the Person of Christ himself gives us the content of morality.

The talk also mentioned how the Mandatum has been interpreted as exclusive to “the world,” that is, as something for the Johannine community alone. The presenter did well to point out that not every instance of “the world” in John is negative. One has only to attend any sporting event to see the guy in the rainbow “wig” testifying to John 3:16.³ In fact, if we understand the Mandatum properly in the context of John 3:16 (”love one another as I have loved you“), we necessarily regard loving as Jesus loves as non-introverted.

The question this raises is: “How is that possible?” We can’t love as Jesus loves. The only way we can fulfill the great commandment, indeed, the only way we can follow Jesus is if the love of God is “poured into our hearts” (Romans 5:5). Now, especially if John is written as late as is usually thought, this Gospel presumes the sacramental life of the community.

Therefore, John answers the question about morality in very concrete terms in a catechesis on the sacraments. How is the love of God poured into our hearts? John 3:5 tells us about Baptism, which makes it possible for us to have the Spirit that gives life (Cf. John 4, John 6). John 6, especially, answers the question about morality with the Eucharist.

“What must I do to have eternal life?”
“I am the life.”
“The water that I will give will become a spring welling up unto eternal life.”
“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.”

The sacraments! Following Jesus is not an external imitation. Indeed, even if one were to give up his life but not have the love of God in his heart, he would profit nothing (Cf. 1 Corinthians 13). This love (the grace of Charity) is given through the sacraments. John’s catechesis to his community on the power of the sacraments is not only theologically profound but concrete; it directs them and us to the Lord where he can be found and not as if he were a distant exemplar from the past.

---

1 See the story of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. “So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ And he said, ‘How can I, unless someone guides me?’” (Acts 8:30-31)

2 I believe that unless someone receives the Eucharist, he is not going to be able to understand the Bible; even the literal sense of the text will sometimes escape him. See the story of the Road to Emmaus in Luke 24.

25 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

[ ... ]

30 When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them. 31 And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. And he vanished from their sight. 32 They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?”

3 You can thank “the brother” for the colorful phraseology.^3a
3a And for suggesting the phrase “colorful phraseology.”

In part of a collection of religious and liturgical images from Musica Sacra, I found this image containing the opening words and symbols of each of the four Gospels surrounding the Lamb of God as well as various figures which signify Christ.

It even contains explanations of the Christological symbols:

“The monoceros (The Greek word for “unicorn”) figures the form of the birth of Christ of the Most Holy Virgin.”

“The eagle figures the form of the ascent of Christ into Heaven to the Father.”

“The pelican figures the form of the suffering of Christ for the salvation of men.”

“The lion figures the form of the raising of Christ from the dead on the third day.”

While praying the Office of Readings the other day, I noticed the following phrase:

sed humiliasti nos in loco vulpium *
et operuisti nos umbra mortis (Psalm 43(44):20, Further revised New Vulgate)

My translation:

But you have set us low in a place of foxes *
and covered us with the shadow of death

When I read that, I remembered that foxes were considered as symbols of death and desolation because they scavenge for the dead.

For instance, Lamentations 5:18 says:

For the mountain of Zion, which is desolate: The foxes walk upon it.

And Nehemiah 4:3:

Now Tobiah the Ammonite was by him, and he said, Even that which they are building, if a fox go up, he shall break down their stone wall.

However, the reason I was startled by the verse at first was that I didn’t remember seeing it before.

The American version of the Liturgy of the Hours has this:

You have crushed us in a place of sorrows
and covered us with the shadow of death (Grail Psalter)

The Revised Standard Version renders it:

that thou shouldst have broken us in the place of jackals,
and covered us with deep darkness. (RSV, Psalm 44:19)

But, the Vulgate has:

quoniam deiecisti nos in loco draconum et operuisti nos umbra mortis (Vulgate, Psalm 44:20)

My translation of the Vulgate:

since you have cast us down in a place of dragons and covered us with the shadow of death

The Septuagint says:

οτι εταπεινωσας ημας εν τοπω κακωσεως και επεκαλυψεν ημας σκια θανατου (LXX, Psalm 43:20)

My translation of the LXX:

because you have set us low in a place of affliction and covered us with a shadow of death.

The relevant words from the Hebrew are: בִּמְקֹ֣ום תַּנִּ֑ים (WLC, Psalm 44:20) which literally means “in a place of dragons.” The word for ‘dragon’ is the same word that is used to describe sea-monsters, the golden serpent that Moses makes, etc.

Hmmm…


[1] - Stopped prayer
# cd /valley/kidron
# ls
olive_grove/
# cd olive_grove/
# who
jesus pts/0 Mar 14 9:00 (localhost)
judas pts/1 Mar 14 9:12 (localhost)
# whoami
jesus
# whoami
jesus


---


Username: simonpeter
Password: *********

$ sword ~malchus
rm: remove write-protected regular file `/home/malchus/ear-right'? y


---


# rm -f /home/simonpeter/bin/sword
# cp ~father/cup ~/
# cd ~annas


---


Username: simonpeter
Password: *********

$ DISCIPLE="FALSE" echo $DISCIPLE
$ !!
$ !!


---


Username: pontiuspilate
Password: *********

$ whatis truth
truth truth (1) - print jesus' voice to stdout
$ scourge jesus
$ cat /usr/bin/man