Intentator malorum

[Pacifica]

I'll give the whole gloss for context if needed, but I only have trouble with the word malorum. It's commenting on the word concupiscentia in 1 John 2:16 quoniam omne quod est in mundo concupiscentia carnis et concupiscentia oculorum est et superbia vitae quae non est ex Patre sed ex mundo est.

Gloss:

Quae concupiscentia et superbia non est ex patre. Pugna viciorum non ex deo est patre et conditore, sed ex mundi amore quem deo praeferimus. Fecit deus homines rectos; ipsi se miscuerunt infinitis quaestionibus. Deus intentator malorum est, sed unusquisque tentatur a propria concupiscentia.

My doubt is whether malorum is neuter or masculine. "God is not a tempter of evils" = he doesn't tempt people to do evils or "God is not a tempter of the wicked" = he's not the one who tempts bad people?

 

[limetrees]

James 1.13 Let no man, when he is tempted, say that he is tempted by God. For God is not a tempter of evils, and he tempteth no man.
Nemo cum tentatur, dicat quoniam a Deo tentatur: Deus enim intentator malorum est: ipse autem neminem tentat.

 

[Pacifica]

Ok, that's how I had first translated it, so it stays as it is. Thanks.

 

[Pacifica]

And what do you think of in illa die peribunt omnes cogitationes malorum? Thoughts of evils or thoughts of the wicked? I'm leaning towards the former but to have a second opinion... if perchance you've seen this expression somewhere else too.

 

[Oups]

Nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum, in quibus non est salus.
Exibit spiritus ejus, et revertetur in terram suam ; in illa die peribunt omnes cogitationes eorum. (Psalm 145,2-4)

the wicked !

 

[limetrees]

Psalms 145.4 His spirit shall go forth, and he shall return into his earth: in that day all their thoughts shall perish.
Exibit spiritus ejus, et revertetur in terram suam; in illa die peribunt omnes cogitationes eorum
So it probably is "thoughts of the wicked"
(Note it's Psalm 146 in many versions)
(and alot of versions understand it as "their plans")

but this has a similar text but meaning, it seems, wicked thoughts.

But given the biblical quote from the first, especially from the Psalms, which was almost certainly what he was quoting from, I would go for the first one.

 

[Pacifica]

Ah, that gender ambiguity. Thank you all.

 

[Carpe Piscem]

James 1.13 Let no man, when he is tempted, say that he is tempted by God. For God is not a tempter of evils, and he tempteth no man.
Nemo cum tentatur, dicat quoniam a Deo tentatur: Deus enim intentator malorum est: ipse autem neminem tentat.

I'm not sure what that means, "tempter of evils." What does it mean to you?

 

[limetrees]

I'm not sure what that means, "tempter of evils." What does it mean to you?

That is a really good question.
I have taken it to be that he does not tempt [men to do] evil things, and it's hard to interpret "tempter of evils" any other way, and that is what L&S interpret "intentator" as = "he who does not tempt"
But this may well not be what was intended by "intentator", but rather that he is not tempted [by evil things], though "-ator" does suggest him being active????

I had a look at lots of other translations on biblegateway, and they all agree (bar Douay Rheims and Wycliffe - both from the Vulgate) on "not tempted by evil", which is what the Greek seems to be.


The translations I looked at (just to save people going to look)
KJ

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

Standard
Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.

DR
Let no man, when he is tempted, say that he is tempted by God. For God is not a tempter of evils, and he tempteth no man.

Young (literal)
13 Let no one say, being tempted -- `From God I am tempted,' for God is not tempted of evil, and Himself doth tempt no one,


Luther
Niemand sage, wenn er versucht wird, daß er von Gott versucht werde. Denn Gott kann nicht versucht werden zum Bösen, und er selbst versucht niemand.

Riveduta
Nessuno, quando è tentato, dica: «Sono tentato da Dio», perché Dio non può essere tentato dal male, ed egli stesso non tenta nessuno;

Segond
Que personne, lorsqu'il est tenté, ne dise: C'est Dieu qui me tente. Car Dieu ne peut être tenté par le mal, et il ne tente lui-même personne.

 

[Pacifica]

Maybe the Latin itself contains a mistranslation then, because nouns in - tor do denote agent, active, as you say, and not passive.

Looking closer at the Latin, I'm finding something strange:

Deus enim intentator malorum est: ipse autem neminem tentat.

With ipse autem, you would expect to have either something opposed or some new information following, and not the repeating of the same information with other words - for two things meaning roughly the same as "he is an un-tempter" and "he tempts no one", you'd rather expect something like deus intentator malorum est, neminem (enim) temptat.

Though I read that autem and enim were sometimes confused in later Latin, I don't know if it may be the case here.

Or more simply, the translator misunderstood whatever was in place of intentator in the original, but still translated the rest, ipse autem, faithfully, thus giving something weird.

 

[limetrees]

Just looking again at L&S and they give intentabilis or intentalis for the Latin of the απειραστος which became intentator in the Vulgate.
Have we caught Jerome nodding?

EDIT: this goes to your last point also, PP, that he intended an opposite to "a temptor", so perhaps intentalis

Or more simply, the translator misunderstood whatever was in place of intentator in the original, but still translated the rest, ipse autem, faithfully, thus giving something weird.

Which translator do you mean?

 

[Pacifica]

Which translator do you mean?

The one who translated it into Latin, presumably Jerome...? (I know he isn't the author of absolutely all the Vulgate, there are some things which he left as they were. I don't know about this particular passage.)

 

[Carpe Piscem]

It's funny. I was trying to remember an example of non-sensical English in the Douay-Rheims because of the conversation in the "propitians" thread. This is a great example (except that in this case looking at the Latin isn't so helpful). The Greek has just been transliterated into the Latin Vulgate. In the Greek construction the word "untempted" takes a genitive case for "evils." In English it would be translated "God is not tempted with evils," or alternately that God is "untempted by evils." (I don't know much Greek, but the genitive does have some different uses than you find in Latin. There is even a "genitive absolute.") For whatever reason Jerome, or whoever, kept the word in the genitive case in Latin. (Was he perhaps unsure of the Greek construction and so played it safe by just transliterating? Or did it make sense in his mind?) Whether he meant for "intentor" to mean "one who is not tempted" or "one who doesn't tempt" is not clear to me. The "autem" is a translation of the Greek word "δὲ," which most commonly means "on the contrary," but can also simply mean "and," which is how most translators have read the Greek. So then the people translating into English for the DR met with a confusing Latin construction and just transliterated it into English. So you have a transliteration of a transliteration of a particularly Greek construction. It can be even worse in the OT where you have Hebrew constructions that were put into odd Greek, which were then transliterated into Latin, and then to English. Because they were working with sacred texts, the translators were often very reticent to do anything that might seem to reflect a change of words -- especially if they were unsure of the meaning. Understandable, but it makes for some inscrutable language.

It might be interesting to look at the glossa of the James passage to see how that Latin text was understood by the early Christian writers. It might give you an insight into what the gloss you're working on is intending to say, since he clearly has that passage in mind (very good catch there Limetrees).

 

[Pacifica]

There's nothing unusual about a noun in - tor + genitive in Latin. The thing is that intentator can only mean "not tempter" and not "not tempted". Nouns in - tor always mean the doer of an action, they are not passive. I'm not sure a Latin translator could really have thought it could be passive, I'd sooner think he'd misunderstood the Greek...

Good idea to look at the gloss, I think I'll do it - just by curiosity because I'll keep "tempter of evils" in my translation.

An interlinear explains intentator malorum est as non est immissor, "he is not an instigator". So the glossator read it as active - as indeed it can only be read if you follow the rules of Latin... No note about the difference from the Greek.

I'll have a note added in the book about this mistranslation matter.

 

[Carpe Piscem]

There's nothing unusual about a noun in - tor + genitive in Latin. The thing is that intentator can only mean "not tempter" and not "not tempted". Nouns in - tor always mean the doer of an action, they are not passive. I'm not sure a Latin translator could really have thought it could be passive, I'd sooner think he'd misunderstood the Greek...

Good idea to look at the gloss, I think I'll do it - just by curiosity because I'll keep "tempter of evils" in my translation.

I wasn't thinking that the translator had thought it was a passive. It just seems strange to have a noun "-tor" ending taking a genitive that is denoting not the one that is not being tempted (which can only be a person or people), but the thing that is not being offered as a temptation. I was already thinking that maybe Jerome really was meaning "not a tempter of evil people," instead of "not a tempter of evils." Wouldn't this make more sense (in spite of the DR)? Again, a look at what patristic sources made of this passage would be interesting. Your Latin is much better than mine, however, so if you say that "intentator" with a genitive neuter makes sense, than I am wiling to believe that is true. "Tempter of evils" makes no sense in English however. In English it would have to either be"tempter of evil ones" or "one who tempts to/with evils" (depending on what meaning actually is). A footnote is a good idea.

 

[Pacifica]

It just seems strange to have a noun "-tor" ending taking a genitive that is denoting not the one that is not being tempted (which can only be a person or people), but the thing that is not being offered as a temptation.

I don't think it's that strange in Latin. The genitive can really express many kinds of relations, more than the English "of" or possessive case does.

I was already thinking that maybe Jerome really was meaning "not a tempter of evil people," instead of "not a tempter of evils." Wouldn't this make more sense (in spite of the DR)?

I myself hesitated whether malorum was "evils" or "bad people" - this was the very reason why I posted this thread! - "bad people" would make sense too, but now things seem to suggests it's "evils".

"Tempter of evils" makes no sense in English however. In English it would have to either be"tempter of evil ones" or "one who tempts to/with evils" (depending on what meaning actually is). A footnote is a good idea.

I've just made one explaining both what is meant by "tempter of evils" and the Greek-Latin mistranslation.

Well finally there'll be no note, the editor doesn't wish to get into a debate concerning different interpretations, which apparently has been a hot subject between Catholics and Protestants.

It seems like the editors of the Douay-Rheims have a footnote about this saying that the Greek itself should be understood actively.

 

[limetrees]

It seems like the editors of the Douay-Rheims have a footnote about this saying that the Greek itself should be understood actively.

Do you know where this footnote is?

EDIT Just found it.
http://archive.org/stream/1610A.d.DouayOldTestament1582A.d.RheimsNewTestament_176/Douay-Rheims-1610-Bible#page/n2742/mode/1up

Interesting.

 

[Pacifica]

I wonder what those of us who know Greek well would think about it. Whether they think it could be active as well as passive.

 

[limetrees]

https://archive.org/details/HellenoLatinikonLexikon
apeirastos = intentatus
(for what it's worth -
The drbo translators would just say it's wrong.)