Psalm 121 as interpreted by Augustine

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

In St Augustine's Exposition on Psalm 121 there is a reference and then explanation of the following words from the Psalm:


whose partaking is in the same...

the Latin of this is:


in id ipsum

This apprears to be from vs 3 of Psalm 121 but is different from either the Septuagint or Hebrew based versions.

I don't know what version of the Latin OT used for his Exposition but would anyone be able to give in English all of vs 3 from his version? It would make his explanation a bit easier to understand.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Kris]

Your Blessing Father,

I was not able to find something corresponding to the Latin you provided, but verse 3 in the Vulgate says "Hierusalem quae aedificaris ut civitas cuius participatio eius simul." My Latin is practically non-existant, but "participatio eius simul" seems to correspond exactly to "whose partaking is in the same."

So from that I would suggest St. Augustine was reading the Vulgate. Here (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=23&chapter=121&version=4) is the full text of the Psalm in Latin.

I'm sorry I couldn't find a English translation of the Vulgate. I tried the Douay-Rheims, but that has "compact together" and so doesn't differ from the other English translations.

I suppose the LXX's "fellowship is complete" is closest to that of the Vulgate.

Hope this is of some help, even though its not what you requested.

In XC,
Kris

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Kris,

Thanks for the info.

I was able in the meantime to find out from someone very knowledgable that in id ipsum is found in older versions of the Vulgate.

It's interesting that the newer versions seem to reflect the Hebrew (or maybe Septuagint?) a little more than previously.

This seems to reflect the idea that there is one correct version of Scripture rather than variant readings. Which is a shame as it ends up abolishing a perfectly acceptable variant and making the reading of one of their major saints so obscure that it takes investigation in dusty old libraries to figure it out.

In any case here is a sample from the St Augustine's Exposition on Psalm 121:


5. But let the following words remove all doubt that we ought not to understand carnally the words, "Whose partaking is in the same." . . . What meaneth, "the same"? What is ever in the same state; not what is now in one state, now in another. What then is, "the same," save that which is? What is that which is? That which is everlasting . . . . Behold "The Same: I AM THAT I AM, I AM." Thou canst not understand; it is much to understand, it is much to apprehend. Remember what He, whom thou canst not comprehend, became for thee. Remember the flesh of Christ, towards which thou wast raised when sick, and when left half dead from the wounds of robbers, that thou mightest be brought to the Inn, and there mightest be cured. Let us therefore run unto the Lord's house, and reach the city where our feet may stand; the city "that is building as a city: whose partaking is in The Same." . . .

6. That city "which partaketh in the same," partaketh in its stability: justly therefore, since he is made a sharer in its stability, saith he who runneth thither. For all things there stand where nought passeth by. Dost thou too wish to stand there and not to pass by? Run thither. Nobody hath "the same" from himself . . . .

[Scott Pierson]

tried the Douay-Rheims,...

I know this is partialyl off topic but how do you folks feel about the Douay Rheims translation of the Bible. I generally use it as my standard Bible because (from what little research I've done) I've heard that its OT is very close to the Septuagint and that it is a fairly accurate translation with beautiful language. I also have the Confranternity translation which was the pre cursor to the NAB (they stoped the project and switched to the NAB translation before they finished the OT so some of the OT is Douay Rheims version) but was translated with refrence to the Vulgate (kind of an update of the Duay Rheims) and it seems like a good translation too.

[David James]

"Hierusalem quae aedificaris ut civitas cuius participatio eius simul" is from St. Jerome's last translation of the Psalms, Versio iuxta Hebraicum, made from pre-Masoretic Hebrew texts c398-405. According to Wikipedia, it appears in a few of the oldest manuscripts of the Vulgate, but it is not clear that it was ever used liturgically.

"Hierusalem quae aedificatur ut civitas cuius participatio eius in id ipsum" is from St. Jerome's second translation, the Versio Gallicana or Gallican Psalter, made from the Greek of the Hexapla, c386-391. This was the standard version of the Roman Church until 2000, when it was replaced by the Versio Nova Vulgata in 2000.

An English translation, consistent with the above, and with the Greek and Slavonic received texts, would be "Jerusalem is built as a city, whose sharing is in common."

The Coverdale: "Jerusalem is built as a city, that is at unity in itself."

The KJ: "Jerusalem is builded as a city that is compact together."

The Douai-Rheims: "Jerusalem, which is built as a city, which is compact together."

David James


Dear Kris,

Thanks for the info.

I was able in the meantime to find out from someone very knowledgable that in id ipsum is found in older versions of the Vulgate.

It's interesting that the newer versions seem to reflect the Hebrew (or maybe Septuagint?) a little more than previously.

This seems to reflect the idea that there is one correct version of Scripture rather than variant readings. Which is a shame as it ends up abolishing a perfectly acceptable variant and making the reading of one of their major saints so obscure that it takes investigation in dusty old libraries to figure it out.

In any case here is a sample from the St Augustine's Exposition on Psalm 121:

[David James]

Scott:

You are correct. Of all the traditional Bibles available in English, the Douai-Rheims version is most consistent with the Septuagint. That is because its reference point was the Vulgate Bible of St. Jerome. The Vulgate text is not totally consistent with the Greek of the Septuagint, since St. Jerome translated some of the books of the OT directly from the Hebrew texts then available, but the psalter in the D-R is very close to the Greek, because the Psalter in the Vulgate was not St. Jerome's third translation, from the Hebrew, but his second, which was from the Greek.

Purely from the point of view of language, my preferred version is the KJ,* but I think a person can choose whatever version suits them for private devotion, especially now that we have the excellent Orthodox Study Bible for comparison.

David James

*Except for the Psalter. For the Psalms, I prefer the Book of Psalms from the first complete Bible printed in English, the Miles Coverdale translation of 1535.




I know this is partialyl off topic but how do you folks feel about the Douay Rheims translation of the Bible. I generally use it as my standard Bible because (from what little research I've done) I've heard that its OT is very close to the Septuagint and that it is a fairly accurate translation with beautiful language. I also have the Confranternity translation which was the pre cursor to the NAB (they stoped the project and switched to the NAB translation before they finished the OT so some of the OT is Douay Rheims version) but was translated with refrence to the Vulgate (kind of an update of the Duay Rheims) and it seems like a good translation too.