# Naturales Deum confessi animam mortalem asserunt.



## Diadem

This phrase is found on p. 154 of the Paris edition of the Pugio Fidei. 

It is one of the section headings for chapter one of part one.

The text is available here via Google Books. Using the page selectors, just go to page 154. There's no need to download anything.

What is the translation of this phrase?

V. _Naturales Deum confessi animam mortalem asserunt.
_
The Naturalists assert .... God ... mortal soul ...


----------



## jrundin

Are you sure that is all correctly copied and complete? It's a
a bit cryptic on its own. 

It makes some sort of sense. My experience of these headings in 
books is that they are always tricky, and, if you have no idea what
the book is about (as I have no idea since I do not have it in front of
me, and, moreover, I don't really know the Latin of Christianity very well),
they are nearly impossible to understand. 

Here's my guess (someone with greater knowledge of the author and context
could do better, I'm sure). I assume that you know what you're doing when you say that
"naturales" means "Naturalists." 

"While the Naturalists have acknowledged (confessi) God, they assert that the soul is mortal."

(I have a nagging but probably unwarranted  fear that there 
might be some reference here to the überfamous phrase
of Vergil here, "confessa deam" [Aeneid 2.591]. Aeneas uses the phrase
as he describes an epiphany of Venus.  She usually hides her identity from him when
she appears to him, but on this occasion, she manifests as a goddess, and he describes
her as "confessa deam."  The unusual phrase "confessa deam"  here means 
something like "having revealed the goddess," that is,  "revealing that she is a goddess.")


----------



## Diadem

Although I couldn't provide a screenshot, I linked you the book on Google Books. You don't need to download anything. Just use the page selector and/ or right scroll bar to move to p. 154.

Regarding your translation, viz. "that the soul *is* mortal," is that possible despite the copula _est_ or even _esse _not being present in the independent clause?


----------



## jrundin

Gosh, I'm so dumb. I didn't notice your link.

Here goes. 

I think my translation is OK. It comports with the text as I read it.
I might now render "Deum confessi" to mean 
"having admitted that God exists."

Yes, "esse" can be left out. Latin often leaves out the infinitive and 
the present indicative forms of "sum" if they can be easily supplied. 
In this case, I think that the Latin has actually left out two instances of "esse."
It is natural enough to leave out "esse" in a heading, which is meant
to be telegraphic. 

In fuller forms, this quote would be"
"Naturales Deum esse confessi, animam esse mortalem asserunt." 
= "The Naturalists, admitting that God exists, assert that the
soul is mortal." 

(compare: the phrase at line 2 of p. 155:
"Deum esse fateri compulsi sunt" = "they are forced to avow that God exists."
the phrase in line 5 that follows:
"omnimodam destructionem corporis et animae rationalis arbitrati sunt" = "They deduced [?]
the complete destruction of the body and the rational soul.")


----------



## Diadem

I didn't have the link at first. Normally I use PDF format, which most people do not like to download. But I remembered that Google Books has that non-PDF version I supplied to you in the edit.

You've been a great help. Thank you!


----------



## CapnPrep

jrundin said:


> In fuller forms, this quote would be"
> "Naturales Deum esse confessi, animam esse mortalem asserunt."
> = "The Naturalists, admitting that God exists, assert that the
> soul is mortal."


Copular _esse_ can be omitted, leaving behind just the predicative complement (as in _animam esse mortalem asserunt_), but I don't think this is possible for _esse_ with no complement, meaning "exist". See, for example, in the previous heading: _negando Deum *esse*_. So in the first part of Diadem's example, I would analyze _Deum_ simply as the accusative object of _confessi_, and I would translate "The Naturalists, who acknowledge (_or_ have acknowledged) God, assert _etc._"


----------



## fdb

jrundin’s translation is fine.

If you read through the text of this short chapter you will see that it consists mainly of quotations or summaries from Algazel (al-Ghazālī). For this reason I think the comparison with Vergil is not relevant.


----------



## jrundin

That's a very good point about an existential "esse" not being left out, CapnPrep., and I 
think you may be right. 

However, I think that  "confiteor" here may be a special case. The heading is summarizing a passage  
that reads ""Deum esse fateri compulsi sunt," where the "esse" is clearly present and 
the  "fateri" is the simple form of the compound verb "confiteor." 

It is true that "confiteor" can take a simple accusative if the object is a crime or injustice or defeat. 
But it seems a different thing to acknowledge a crime and to acknowledge God. But I'm probably 
splitting hairs. I don't think it really matters much whether one says "to acknowledge God" or
"to acknowledge that God exists." So I'm just quibbling here.


----------



## jrundin

I agree, fdb. Once I saw the actual passage, all thoughts of Vergil were abandoned.


----------



## jrundin

And, actually, CapnPrep, I really enjoyed thinking about your comment about copular 
vs. existential esse. It's a weird puzzle. I was inclined to not take "Deum confessus"
not at face value because I could find  little precedent for the expression. But it
really opens up a can of worms when I think about it.


----------



## CapnPrep

There seem to plenty of examples in Christian Latin of _Deum/Christum/Dominum confessus (sum)_ for which the context makes it clear that it's God or Christ's power/authority/divinity/etc. that is recognized, and not his mere existence. In other words, _Deum_ can be the direct object of _confiteor_ without an understood _esse_. So I think this is a possible analysis of Diadem's example. I actually believe it is the best/only analysis, but that is based on my (so far totally groundless ) assumption that "exist" _esse_ cannot normally be omitted.


----------



## jrundin

I think your point is quite reasonable, CapnPrep. 

I reasoned back to the suppressed "esse" from the text itself, which had "Deum esse fateri compulsi sunt." "fateri compellor" is actually what "confiteor" means more or less. When tackling something like this, I try to work from the text itself since it is the best witness to the writer's usage. Originally, I had said something like "acknowledge God." But a look at the text led me away from that initial interpetation towards "admitting that God exists." 

In fact, it's not clear to me that there is much difference, in the pre-modern mind, between saying God exists and acknowledging his power and efficacy.

In classical Latin, pretty generally, confiteor takes some sort of indirect statement. Sometimes it is used with objects like "scelus" or whatever. What this discussion made me wonder was whether when one says something like "confiteor scelus" what is really implied is "confiteor scelus esse." 

I actually could only find one example of "Deum confiteor" when I did a brief search, and it was a medieval text from a backwater (England). And, even then God had a sort of predicate in the form of present active participles, which seemed like they might come from the vulgar language. Alas, I can't find it again. I wish I had bookmarked it. What examples did you find?

I dunno. 

The only solution would to be read a lot of this author and get his style down. Alas, I have 
other projects. 

At any rate, thanks for making me think. I hear that wards off Alzheimers!


----------



## CapnPrep

Here's a nice exmaple, from a letter by Cornelius to Cyprian (quoted by Cyprian):

Nec enim ignoramus unum Deum esse, unum Christum esse Dominum, *quem confessi sumus*, unum Spiritum Sanctum, unum episcopum in Catholica ecclesia esse debere. (source) 
We have _esse_ all over the place in the various complement clauses, but not in the complement of _confessus_. I would translate this as "that there exists one God, one Christ the Lord, whom we recognize, one Holy Spirit, _etc._"


Et qui in Cristo confessus fuerit, *Christum confitebitur*.          (Tertullian, Ad. Gn. Scorp.) 
The surrounding passage contains many other instances of _aliquem confiteor_, alongside _in aliquo confiteor_, and I'm not sure what sense distinction that corresponds to. Tertullian quotes a Bible verse:

Omnis igitur qui *in me confessus* fuerit coram hominibus, et ego *confitebor in illo* coram Patre meo qui in coelis est. 
which appears in the current (?) version of the Vulgate as:

omnis ergo qui *confitebitur me* coram hominibus confitebor et ego *eum* coram Patre meo qui est in caelis (Matthew 10:32) 
 It looks like _confiteor_ is one of those words that took on a new life within Christian Latin, and we can't necessarily understand its use by referring either to Classical Latin, or to its modern descendants. That said, English _confess_ does/did allow this accusative construction meaning "To acknowledge or formally recognize (a person or  thing) as having a certain character or certain claims; to own, avow,  declare belief in or adhesion to" (OED):

Therefore whoever *confesses Me *before men, *him I will also confess* before My Father who is in heaven. (NKJV translation of the same verse) 
1848 A. Jameson _Sacred & Legendary Art_ II. 231 He, *whom I confess* and adore.


----------



## jrundin

Thanks, CapnPrep. I'm convinced. And that was a lot of effort.


----------



## fdb

Tertullian lived two centuries before Jerome, so obviously he did not use the Vulgata, but one of the versions of the Vetus Latina. Its use of the _confiteor_ with the preposition_ in _mirrors exactly the Greek original (Πᾶς οὖν ὅστις *ὁμολογήσει** ἐν ἐμοὶ* ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, *ὁμολογήσω** κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ* ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς).


----------



## jrundin

This is really fascinating. Alas, everytime I look at this thread, I become more and 
more confused about what "confiteor" or "ὁμολογέω" actually mean. What on earth
can "confitebor et ego eum" and  "ὁμολογήσω κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ" mean?  

I wonder if this is some sort of Semitic calque. Such things in the scriptures often are.


----------



## exgerman

jrundin said:


> I wonder if this is some sort of Semitic calque. Such things in the scriptures often are.



Here's the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the associated noun confessor. It'll tell you what the noun and verb mean in Christian Latin, and why they are used in these texts.


----------



## CapnPrep

exgerman said:


> Here's the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the associated noun confessor. It'll tell you what the noun and verb mean in Christian Latin, and why they are used in these texts.


Unfortunately, it doesn't actually say anything about the verb, so it doesn't help us much here. 


fdb said:


> [The Vetus Latina's] use of the _confiteor_ with the preposition_ in _mirrors exactly the Greek original (Πᾶς οὖν ὅστις *ὁμολογήσει** ἐν ἐμοὶ* ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, *ὁμολογήσω** κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ* ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς).


Is this the normal construction in Greek? And do you have a sense of the distinction Tertullian has in mind when he contrasts the two constructions (_in _+ abl vs. acc), for example in the sentence I quoted above? Or do you think they are interchangeable in (this stage of) Christian Latin?


----------



## exgerman

CapnPrep said:


> Unfortunately, it doesn't actually say anything about the verb, so it doesn't help us much here.


Two seconds thought will convince you that the noun and the verb are intimately connected.


----------



## CapnPrep

exgerman said:


> Two seconds thought will convince you that the noun and the verb are intimately connected.


Sure, but we were discussing details of the syntactic construction of the verb, and there is nothing about that in the linked article. We were also wondering about the meaning of _confiteor_ in post-classical Latin, but it's clear that the specific concept of _confessor_ is absent from many of the instances of the verb cited in this thread, beginning with Diadem's original example. The Naturalists in Martí's text are obviously not _confessores_. Christ himself in the verse from Matthew is not a _confessor_. Does your article help us understand the use of _confiteor_ in these cases?


----------



## jrundin

jrundin said:


> What on earth
> can "confitebor et ego eum" and  "ὁμολογήσω κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ" mean?



Actually, I can live with confessing God. Though I do agree that, in this context, as CapnPrep
indicated, the Naturalists are not confessing God in a Christian sense. They are merely 
conceding His existence because of what I take to be an argument from design for God's existence (they
see all the wonders of nature and conclude that there must be a God). 

My point in the above quote was why the heck will Jesus have to confess a person who
confesses Him? I have no idea what that means.


----------



## fdb

CapnPrep said:


> Unfortunately, it doesn't actually say anything about the verb, so it doesn't help us much here.
> Is this the normal construction in Greek? And do you have a sense of the distinction Tertullian has in mind when he contrasts the two constructions (_in _+ abl vs. acc), for example in the sentence I quoted above? Or do you think they are interchangeable in (this stage of) Christian Latin?



In classical Greek ὁμολογέω with the dative means “agree with s.o. or s.th.”, with the accusative “agree to s.th.”. With both cases together it means “agree with s.o. about something”. In the Q-pericope Mt 10:32 = Lc 12:8 ὁμολογέω + ἐν + dat. “appears to be an Aramaism” (thus _LS_ s.v.).

Latin _confiteor_ “agree to, admit” takes the accusative in the classical language. The citation from Tertullian  is a close calque on the Greek with _in_ + abl. (_me_ is here abl. not acc.) as the correct Latin equivalent of ἐν + dat.


----------



## fdb

jrundin said:


> Actually, I can live with confessing God. Though I do agree that, in this context, as CapnPrep
> indicated, the Naturalists are not confessing God in a Christian sense. They are merely
> conceding His existence because of what I take to be an argument from design for God's existence (they
> see all the wonders of nature and conclude that there must be a God).
> 
> My point in the above quote was why the heck will Jesus have to confess a person who
> confesses Him? I have no idea what that means.



There is a very long article in the _Theol. Wb. z. NT._ s.v. ὁμολογέω, where all the semantic and theological niceties are discussed in fullest detail.


----------



## CapnPrep

jrundin said:


> My point in the above quote was why the heck will Jesus have to confess a person who
> confesses Him?


It's the polite thing to do 


fdb said:


> The citation from Tertullian  is a close calque on the Greek with _in_ + abl. (_me_ is here abl. not acc.) as the correct Latin equivalent of ἐν + dat.


The thing is, he uses both constructions (_in _+  abl vs. simple accusative) and they appear to have different meanings  for him. For example in the citation above, and even more clearly a few  sentences earlier:

Porro, in Christo confitendo, Christum quoque confitetur […] 


Update. This translation (S. Thelwall) takes the easy way out: "Besides, by confessing in Christ he confesses Christ too  […] he who will deny in Christ, will deny Christ, and he who will confess in Christ will confess Christ." (The same strange alternation occurs with _negare_.) Maybe _in Christo confiteri/negare_ should be read as _[se] in Christo [esse] confiteri/negare_?


----------



## FXSI

No soy especialista en nada, pero la expresión ὁμολογήσω κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ yo la traduciría al latín 'confitebor ipse in eo', y, en castellano, o 'yo confesaré lo mismo', o 'coincido en confesar lo mismo'. No veo por qué el 'αὐτῷ' griego se haya de personalizar, siendo que puede ser por igual neutro o masculino, y lo mismo podría afirmarse del latín 'eo'.

Me es rara la construcción del verbo con la preposición ἐν (vertida al 'in' latino); pues más lógico sería un 'cum' latino, repítiendo el prefijo unido al 'fateor', que traduce la raíz griega 'λογ' sólo en uno de sus múltiples sentidos, afines a razonar, pensar, decir, y cercana aun a la de 'elegir'.

Pero, como indiqué, ni soy especialista ni he leído de Tertuliano sino frases.., menos sé de quién es la cita griega, si lo es, pues el contexto precisaría el sentido del vocablo.


----------

