On Sunday night I settled down with my bible to read psalm 97 in an English version. But having done so, I remembered that I had given myself a parallel Latin-English book of psalms, as a Christmas present. Other versions are around, but this is the Philip Magnus White, This gives the Vulgate Latin text and the Douai-Rheims English translation of it.
Anyway I got the volume out. Pleasingly it’s about the length and width of a normal bible, although much slimmer, and the text is a reasonable size.
Of course in the Latin, this is psalm 96. So I read the Latin, and tried to understand each phrase, and then checked against the parallel English. But then I came to verse 5:
Montes sicut cera fluxerunt a facie Domini; a facie Domini omnis terra.
The mountains melted like wax, at the presence of the Lord: at the presence of the Lord of all the earth.
How interesting to see “facie Domini”, the face of the Lord, rendered as “presence of the Lord.” It’s all useful stuff, when dealing with medieval Latin, much of which is Vulgate fan-fiction. Reading the Vulgate Psalms is a great way to improve your medieval Latin, and fun to do.
But then I looked at the last words, “omnis terra”. This… looks wrong. “Omnis” is the genitive adjective, but “terra” is nominative. It ought to be “omnis terrae.”
I googled “omnis terra” and “omnis terrae”, and quickly found hits for both. Some online Vulgates have the one, some the other. Which is right? Is there some funny usage unknown to me?
I went to Weber’s Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, the Stuttgart critical edition. Interestingly this prints the psalms in facing pages, one with the Latin translation of the LXX, the other with the Latin translation of the Hebrew. And…. “terrae” is the reading printed.
The apparatus indicates that some of the medieval codices have “terra”. It’s easy to see why, once you’ve worked with medieval Latin copies of texts. These invariably engage in the evil practice of abbreviation, which means that “ae” would be written as an “a” with a curly stroke springing from the top right. Of course such strokes are easily omitted. Thus does “terrae” become “terra”.
The previous verse may explain the mistake.
Illuxerunt fulgura ejus orbi terrae; vidit, et commota est terra.
His lightnings have shone forth to the world: the earth saw and trembled.
The line does actually end with “terra”. The copyist’s eye could easily mistake the last word on the line above for the word on the current line. The same might be true when somebody today is transcribing a Latin text.
So… it’s a simple error. Which has made its way online. Bible Gateway have the error; others have the correct reading.
“Montes sicut cera fluxerunt a facie Domini; a facie Domini omnis terra” is not grammatically a problem – it would mean “the mountains melt like wax before the Lord’s face, [and] the whole world [also melts like wax] before the Lord’s face”. A quick look at editions of the vulgate suggests that there are several quite early mediaeval mss with this reading “terra”. It is clearly an error, of course. But it still produces a workable sense.
That was how I first read it, tbh, and thought it strange. But the nominative at the end paralled verse 4.
The Greek has: ἀπὸ προσώπου Κυρίου πάσης τῆς γῆς, which supports terrae.
Omnis Is genitive adjective but nominative too! Omnis,omnis,omni,omnem, omnis, omne. I don’t see an error. Omnis terra is nominative, and omnis terra Is genitive
It’s certainly possible syntactically. The Hebrew is genitive tho.
Omnis terrae is genitive!
Automatic stupid corrector!
Thank you! I had not looked at the LXX.
Shows how filled with uncertainty the Vulgate is, especially as it went through so many revisions by various hands. John Calvin translates that phrase as “tōtīus terrae.”
I would say rather that it shows how little attention the Vulgate is receiving today. Which is a shame.
Sabatier’s Vetus Latina has terra, as a point of comparison: https://archive.org/details/bibliorumsacroru02saba/page/191/mode/1up
Interesting! Thank you.
I wonder to what extent our knowledge of the Hebrew meaning is influencing our decisions here.
‘“ae” would be written as an “a” with a curly stroke springing from the top right’
That’s not how medieval Latin abbreviations work.
As ‘æ’ fell out of use, it was replaced by ‘ę’ in the 12th century, and then the ‘ae’ ending was written with just an ‘e’, so ‘terrae’ was usually written as ‘terre’. If there were a stroke above the final letter of ‘terra’, the abbreviation-mark would indicate that the word is ‘terram’, not ‘terrae’
Thank you so much for clarifying that so clearly. Apologies for the brain fade. I suspect that I was thinking of the e with the hook, and confused myself. (A macron over the -a would indeed be -am.)
I was interested to find online a text of Augustine’s commentary on the psalms, with the -a ending. If ancient – I’ve not looked at a critical edition – then perhaps the -a reading is a vestige of the Old Latin.
“omnis” ist sowohl Nominativ Singular Masculinum und Femiminum als auch Genetiv Singular aller drei Geschlechter und kann also sowohl mit “terra” als auch mit “terrae” kongruieren.
“Face of the Lord” is the literal Hebrew for the presence of the Lord. “Bread of the face” = bread of the Presence, shewbread.
The other thing is that liturgical/Office psalms traditionally were not sung according to the Vulgate, but either were Old.Latin or Gallican. (IIRC.)
Both interesting points. So the Latin is representing the Hebrew.
I’d be interested to hear more about the singing from the Old Latin. I’m looking at the Old Latin psalter preserved in the Verona psalter, and this definitely has “omnis terra.”
Dr Schmidt! Es hat mich sehr gefreut deutsch hier zu lesen. 🙂 War mein Hauptfach ein Paar Jahre vor der Sintflut.
Roger, I assume your English text was Challoner’s. Being curious, I pulled up Volume 2 from first edition Douay (1610), which reads:
“The mountaines melted as waxe, before the face of our Lord : before the face of our Lord al the earth.”
The marginal note there says:
“These thinges are denounced [announced] as already donne, for the assured certainty thereof.”
These appear on page 179. Here’s a direct link to that page in facsimile:
https://archive.org/details/holiebiblefaithf02engl/page/179/mode/1up?view=theater
To me this as an amateur this implies that terra was the word at the end of Psalm 96:5 in the Recusant Douay translators’ Vulgate (or preferred Vulgate reading).
They might have had a Clementine Vulgate at their disposal at Douay; it was first published in 1592. But there were inevitably printers’ errors in the early printings.
Corrected printings were issued but they contained fresh printer’s errors of their own. Fr Michael Hetzenauer, OP had not yet come along to collate the most authoritative printings and provide the world with what he deemed to be the correct reading.
Hetzenauer’s critical version underwent iterative corrections of its own; it was his life’s work. If I recall, his last and most correct Clementine Vulgate, his crowning achievement, was published posthumously in 1922.
The Online Books Page lists several of Hetzenauer’s works including his critical Clementine Vulgate of 1922.
The list is here:
https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Hetzenauer%2C%20Michael
Psalm 96:5 in Hetzenauer 1922 is here:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924082449210&seq=568
Hetzenauer’s reading is terra. (The suspense I felt looking that up on a slow connection!)
I wouldn’t revise Challoner on Hetzenauer’s account. What Challoner wrote, he wrote, because reasons. One idly wonders if Challoner was aware of the Vulgate variants for Psalm 96:5.
Correction, Psalm 96:5 in Hetzenauer 1922 is here:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924082449210&seq=572
I can’t even post an error-free comment. Imagine producing a critical edition of the Bible with the least number of errors humanly possible.
I can so relate to that. I’m unbelievably dozy. I think it’s the time of year, the short days and long nights messes with your body clock.