Matthew 9:16

[Patricius]

I am of course familiar with the English translation of this verse, but am being driven mad by the Latin syntax: Nemo autem immittit commissuram panni rudis in vestimentum vetus: tollit enim pelnitutinem eius a vestimento, et peior scissura fit.

The best literal construction I can make of it is: "No one, moreover, engrafts into an old garment, for the purpose of integrating it [into the fabric], raw (viz "new") patches; for it takes away the wholeness [viz "integrity"] from the garment and a worse tear is made."

Am I far off here? I'll be very grateful for any comments.

 

[Bitmap]

I am of course familiar with the English translation of this verse, but am being driven mad by the Latin syntax: Nemo autem immittit commissuram panni rudis in vestimentum vetus: tollit enim pelnitutinem eius a vestimento, et peior scissura fit.

The best literal construction I can make of it is: "No one, moreover, engrafts into an old garment, for the purpose of integrating it [into the fabric], raw (viz "new") patches;

Commissura is simply to be taken as a noun and is supposed to be the Latin word for ἐπίβλημα, literally "something which is thrown over". Hence the translation "patch". panni rudis is a genitive attribute depending on commissuram.

no one, moreover, puts a piece/patch of new cloth on old garment.

for it takes away the wholeness [viz "integrity"] from the garment and a worse tear is made."

Your Latin text seems weird. "pelnitutinem" makes no sense. The Vatican version says "supplementum". The Greek word is πλήρωμα, which is a filling or a complement, literally, so I would call it "patch" once again: "because he/she tears the patch off the garment, and the hole/tearing (scissura) becomes (fit) worse (peior)."

I'd interprete that as some weird kind of conditional clause: "If you tear off the patch, again, the hole becomes worse".

 

[Patricius]

Thank you for your kind and patient help. Prof. Cassell translates "commissura" as "joining" but since the sense of the joining is integration, I said "for the purpose of integration" which was awkward at best. I am especially grateful for your courtesy in crediting my stupid blunder "pelnitutinem" with being a Latin word. The source has "plenitudinem" which is where I got "wholeness/integrity". So putting it all together, I guess it looks like "No one, moreover, engrafts supplementation of raw patches, into an old garment. For this takes away from the garment its integrity and the tear becomes worse."

If you have any remaining patience, would you please let me know if this is far off?

My source for the Latin is Fridericus Brandscheid "Novum Testamentum Latine Vulgatae Versionis Clementiae..." ed. altera, Fridburgi Biscoviae: MCMI.

Thanks yet again and blessings.

 

[Bitmap]

Hmmm ... when I look at different translations of this passage, most seem to take πλήρωμα as the subject of the sentence (which could be done with supplementum as well): "Its patch (=pleroma) takes away <something> from the garment."
... while the Vulgate translation with plenitudinem understands "pleroma" not as a patch, but as 'integrity' and turns it into the object; and if you check the dictionary, it looks like that is possible as well: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=πλήρωμα&la=greek#lexicon
I supppose in that case you arrive at the translation that you have, indeed.

 

[Patricius]

Thank you! You have been very kind and very helpful.