Another Beza quotation from Latin

[Christusregnat]

Does this get boring for anyone?

I'm needing help with a Beza quotation.

The part in bold is what I'm puzzled by.

Anyone?


quia qui non credit Filio, non videbit vitam, sed ira Dei manet super eum. Quòd si Dei cultū in nuda illa Christi cognitione ponas, quis nō videt diabolos quoad praecipuam religionis partē Christianis hominibus tanto antecellere, quanto excellentiorem de Deo Patre, Filio & Spiritu sancto cognitionem habēt?



Any guesses?

Cheers,

 

[JennyG]

Hi Adam, -
himself is not here at the moment but I couldn't resist having a wee crack at it anyway. Stressing that I claim no infallibility here (but if it turns out to be right I want the credit, naturally )
from ...quis non videt, though if the no doesn't stand for non then it's back to the drawing board:

...who does not see that, as far as the primary part of religion [is concerned], the devil will outdo Christian men just to the extent [tanto/quanto] that he has a more excellent knowledge concerning the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

My only problem is that I don't see why the habet should have that contraction line on it. If I'm construing right, it ought to be singular (subject, diabolos)

 

[Christusregnat]

...who does not see that, as far as the primary part of religion [is concerned], the devil will outdo Christian men just to the extent [tanto/quanto] that he has a more excellent knowledge concerning the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

My only problem is that I don't see why the habet should have that contraction line on it. If I'm construing right, it ought to be singular (subject, diabolos)

Thanks Jenny!

I have caught Beza in a few errors like this, which he didn't include in his errata, so you might be right about habent really being habet.

Your translation fits within the context as well. I was wondering why Beza would say that the devil outstrips men in the knowledge of God, but that might fit the context.

 

[JennyG]

I see now I think - I was careless. of course diabolos is plural! I was thinking of it as a Greek masculine ending, but then it would still have been wrong since it needs to be accusative. Sloppy or what!!

So habent is right after all and it reads "the devils will outdo men..." just as James says the devils (plural) believe and tremble. I'm glad Adrian didn't see that!

 

[Christusregnat]

Ahhhhh.... I was reading Greek too. Oops! Excellent catch!

 

[JennyG]

...and of course I gratuitously inserted the "will". there's no way antecellere would be a future infinitive, I state with a fair amount of confidence after an intense few minutes with a Latin grammar

 

[Christusregnat]

Not to worry. It has been my experience that Latinisms are not always easily transferable to English, so there is some amount of modification that needs to take place.

Thanks!

 

[Wayne]

New game: "Thread Tag"

Hey, Josh! Over here! Oops....I'm outta here.