Level 4; literature; Vulgate: The Parable of the Good Samaritan [Luke 10:25–37] (3); narrative structure; the rule of three; the tricolon

[25] Et ecce quīdam lēgisperītus surrēxit tentāns illum, et dīcēns: Magister, quid faciendō vītam aeternam possidēbō?

[26] At ille dīxit ad eum: In lēge quid scrīptum est? quōmodo legis?

[27] Ille respondēns dīxit: Dīligēs Dominum Deum tuum ex tōtō corde tuō, et ex tōtā animā tuā, et ex omnibus virtūtibus tuīs, et ex omnī mente tuā: et proximum tuum sīcut tēipsum.

[28] Dīxitque illī: Rēctē respondistī: hoc fac, et vīvēs.

[29] Ille autem volēns iūstificāre sēipsum, dīxit ad Iēsum: Et quis est meus proximus?

[30] Suscipiēns autem Iēsūs, dīxit: Homō quīdam dēscendēbat ab Ierusālem in Ierīchō, et incīdit in latrōnēs, quī etiam dēspoliāvērunt eum: et plāgīs impositīs abiērunt sēmivīvō relictō.

[31] Accidit autem ut sacerdōs quīdam dēscenderet eādem viā: et vīsō illō praeterīvit.

[32] Similiter et Lēvīta, cum esset secus locum, et vidēret eum, pertrānsiit.

[33] Samarītānus autem quīdam iter faciēns, vēnit secus eum: et vidēns eum, misericordiā mōtus est.

[34]  Et (1) appropiāns alligāvit vulnera eius, (2) īnfundēns oleum et vīnum: et (3) impōnēns illum in iūmentum suum, dūxit in stabulum, et cūram eius ēgit.

[35] Et alterā diē prōtulit duōs dēnāriōs, et dedit stabulāriō, et ait: Cūram illīus habē: et quodcumque superērogāverīs, ego cum redierō reddam tibi.

[36] Quis hōrum trium vidētur tibi proximus fuisse illī, quī incīdit in latrōnēs?

[37] At ille dīxit: Quī fēcit misericordiam in illum. Et ait illī Iēsūs: Vāde, et tū fac similiter.

[1] The purpose of a Parable is to convey a moral or spiritual concept in short and simple terms. It is also generalised, hence the use of:

quīdam lēgisperītus: a certain lawyer / expert in the law

homō quīdam: a certain man

sacerdōs quīdam: a certain priest

Samarītānus … quīdam: a certain Samaritan

i.e. the parable applies to everybody and is not narrowed by references to specific individuals or periods of time.

[2] Note the means by which statements can be succinctly expressed:

[i] present active participle, for example:

l25: tentāns illum, et dīcēns |  testing him, and saying

[ii] ablative absolute constructions comprising two words:

l30: plāgīs impositīs |  with blows having been inflicted

l30: sēmivīvō relictō | with him having been left half alive

l31: visō illō:  with him having been seen

Such literal translations – although the first step in comprehending meaning – need to be reworked depending upon context, for example:

l31: visō illō praeterīvit

There are various possibilities including:

[i] When he saw him, he passed by.

[ii] After / once he had seen him, he passed by.

[iii] Having seen him / (upon) seeing him, he passed by.

[3] An interesting feature is the structure of lines 31-33. It is neither being flippant, nor undermining the moral value of the lines to observe that, given that the parable is compressed storytelling, it parallels the structure of a three part joke.

Exposition (setting the scene and circumstances): Three men are stranded on a desert island and find a magic lantern. A genie pops out and grants each of them one single wish.

(1) Setup: The first man says, "I wish I was back home with my family." Flash! He vanishes.

(2) Reinforcement: The second man says, "I wish I was back home in my warm bed." Flash! He vanishes. This establishes the pattern with the same or similar language and recounting of events.

(3) Subversion (the ‘punchline’): The third man looks around at the empty beach and says, "Wow, I feel so lonely now. I wish my two friends were back here with me!"

Line 3 undermines the expectation established in lines 1 and 2.

Compare that structure with lines 30-33:

Line 30: exposition

Homō quīdam dēscendēbat ab Ierusālem in Ierīchō, et incīdit in latrōnēs, quī etiam dēspoliāvērunt eum: et plāgīs impositīs abiērunt sēmivīvō relictō. 

• "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, who also stripped him: after they had beaten him, they departed, having abandoned him half alive.”

(1) Line 31: set up

Accidit autem ut sacerdōs quīdam dēscenderet eādem viā: et vīsō illō praeterīvit. 

• “It happened that a certain priest was going down the same road, and when he saw him, he passed by.”

(2) Line 32: reinforcement

Similiter et Lēvīta, cum esset secus locum, et vidēret eum, pertrānsiit. 

• “And similarly, a Levite, when he was beside the place and saw him, passed by.” 

(3) Line 33: subversion i.e. what is expected based upon the content of lines 31-32 is reversed:

Samarītānus autem quīdam iter faciēns, vēnit secus eum: et vidēns eum, misericordiā mōtus est. 

• “But a certain Samaritan, while travelling, came beside him: and seeing him, was moved by pity.” 

While this parable is, of course, in no way light-hearted, it is –  like the account of the Trial of Jesus – a striking example of highly focused narrative technique, in which moral teaching is delivered in a form that is concise, memorable, and free of superfluous detail. Noticeable also is the implication of hypocrisy on the part of the priest and the Levite without this being specifically expressed.

[4] The “rule of three” is a common feature of, for example, our contemporary advertising and political slogans:

NIKE: (1) JUST (2) DO (3) IT

McDONALD’S: I’M LOVIN’ IT

PEACE! LAND! BREAD!

Ideas are conveyed in groups of three because our minds absorb that information quickly:

LOOK RIGHT, LOOK LEFT, LOOK RIGHT AGAIN

Such a structure is not new. In this triumphant line, we see it:

VENI, VIDI, VICI: three ‘messages’, poetically bound by three identical perfect tense forms and the alliteration of V.

[i] The parable divides the key events into three but with similar lexis that combines them.

[ii] Note also line 34:

(1) appropiāns alligāvit vulnera eius, (2) īnfundēns oleum et vīnum: (3) et impōnēns illum …

The term when dealing with Latin Literature is the tricolon. Below are links which discuss the tricolon and, in particular, Cicero’s frequent use of the device.

29.04.24: the tomb of Scipio Barbatus; I’m lovin’ it

https://adckl.blogspot.com/2024/05/290424-tomb-of-scipio-barbatus-im-lovin.html

29.05.24: level 2; a side note

https://adckl.blogspot.com/2024/05/290524-level-2-side-note.html

07.04.25: Level 3; deponent verbs (9); perfect, pluperfect and future perfect tenses

https://adckl.blogspot.com/2025/01/070425-level-3-deponent-verbs-9-perfect.html

30.01.26: Level 3; indirect statement; the accusative-infinitive [16]; the perfect passive infinitive [iv]; reading

https://adckl.blogspot.com/2025/11/300126-level-3-indirect-statement.html

24.04.26: Describing objects [17]; Cicero against Verres, ‘the art thief’

https://adckl.blogspot.com/2026/01/240426-describing-objects-17-cicero.html

07.06.26; Level 3+; Subjunctive [49] passive forms [ii] imperfect passive (3) anatomy of a sentence; Cicero’s rhetorical style

https://adckl.blogspot.com/2026/02/070626-level-3-subjunctive-49-passive.html

19.02.27: Level 3+ (review); correlatives [6] making comparisons (3); totiēns … quotiēns …

https://adckl.blogspot.com/2026/07/190227-level-3-review-correlatives-6.html

23.01.27: Level 3+ (review); correlatives [2]

https://adckl.blogspot.com/2026/07/230127-level-3-review-correlatives-2.html

15.04.27: Topic / Level 4; transport [6]: wheeled vehicles (6) raeda; Cicero and the defence of Milo [i]

https://adckl.blogspot.com/2026/09/150427-topic-level-4-transport-6.html

16.04.27: Topic / Level 4; transport [7]: wheeled vehicles (7) raeda; Cicero and the defence of Milo [ii]

https://adckl.blogspot.com/2026/09/160427-topic-level-4-transport-7.html

Level 4; literature; Vulgate: The Parable of the Good Samaritan [Luke 10:25–37] (2) text; translation; notes

Luke 10:25–37

[25] Et ecce quīdam lēgisperītus surrēxit tentāns illum, et dīcēns: Magister, quid faciendō vītam aeternam possidēbō?

And behold: a certain expert in the law stood up, testing him (Jesus) and saying: “Teacher, what must I do to have eternal life? [literally: by doing what, shall I possess …?]”

faciendō: gerund

https://adckl.blogspot.com/search/label/gerund

[26] At ille dīxit ad eum: In lēge quid scrīptum est? quōmodo legis?

And he said to him: “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?”

[27] Ille respondēns dīxit: Dīligēs Dominum Deum tuum ex tōtō corde tuō, et ex tōtā animā tuā, et ex omnibus virtūtibus tuīs, et ex omnī mente tuā: et proximum tuum sīcut tēipsum.

Replying, he said: “You will love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul and with all your strength, and with all your mind: and your neighbour as yourself.”

[28] Dīxitque illī: Rēctē respondistī: hoc fac, et vīvēs.

And he said to him: “You have answered correctly: do this and you will live.”

[29] Ille autem volēns iūstificāre sēipsum, dīxit ad Iēsum: Et quis est meus proximus?

But wanting to justify himself, he said to Jesus: “And who is my neighbour?”

[30] Suscipiēns autem Iēsūs, dīxit: Homō quīdam dēscendēbat ab Ierusālem in Ierīchō, et incīdit in latrōnēs, quī etiam dēspoliāvērunt eum: et [i] plāgīs impositīs abiērunt [ii] sēmivīvō relictō.

But Jesus, replying [literally: taking up (the question)], said: "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, who also stripped him: [i] after they had beaten him, they departed [ii] having left / abandoned him half alive.”

Ierīchō [f.]; indeclinable

Ierūsalem / Hierūsalēm [n.]; indeclinable

Ablative absolute:

[i] plāgīs impositīs: with blows having been inflicted

[ii] sēmivīvō relictō: with him having been left half alive

____________________

[31] Accidit autem ut sacerdōs quīdam dēscenderet eādem viā: et vīsō illō praeterīvit.

“It happened that a certain priest was going down the same road, and when he saw him, he passed by.”

accidit ut + subjunctive: it happened that ….

The line could be rephrased as: A priest happened to be going down …

03.10.26: Level 3+ (review); impersonal verbs [8] introducing clauses with ut + subjunctive; cōnstat + accusative-infinitive

https://adckl.blogspot.com/2026/04/031026-level-3-review-impersonal-verbs_13.html

[32] Similiter et Lēvīta, cum esset secus locum, et vidēret eum, pertrānsiit.

“And similarly, a Levite, when he was beside the place and saw him, passed by.” 

secus (+ accusative): alongside, beside, along, by, near(by)

[33] Samarītānus autem quīdam iter faciēns, vēnit secus eum: et vidēns eum, misericordiā mōtus est.

“But a certain Samaritan, while travelling, came beside him: and seeing him, was moved by pity.” 

Lines 31-32: establish a pattern of behaviour, referring to two religious roles i.e. two individuals who, despite the Law referred to in l27, do not respond appropriately.

Line 33 sharply contrasts the behaviour of the priest and the Levite with that of the Samaritan, the latter assisting the man despite hostility between the Samaritans and the Jews.

However, all three lines are connected in the structure of the language.

(1) references to seeing the man but expressed in three different ways:

l31: visō illō [ablative absolute]

l32: cum … videret eum [imperfect subjunctive; cum-clause of circumstance]

l33: et vidēns eum [present active participle]

(2) references to disregarding the man; the same idea is expressed twice but in slightly different ways:

praeterīvit / pertrānsiit

Both are the perfect tense of prefixed forms of īre, one of which is contracted (pertrānsiit) and the other is not (praeterīvit).

Likewise, the aural similarity of praeter- and per- emphasises that neither the priest nor the Levite even stopped.

(3) the repetition of secus in lines 32 and 33 contrasts the responses: the Levite was alongside the man and passed by him, whereas the Samaritan was alongside the man and came to his aid.

____________________

[34]  Et appropiāns alligāvit vulnera eius, īnfundēns oleum et vīnum: et impōnēns illum in iūmentum suum, dūxit in stabulum, et cūram eius ēgit.

“And approaching (him) he bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine: and placing him on his own donkey, he led him to an inn, and took care of him.”

iūmentum, -ī [2/n]: (here) a draft animal i.e. one that is used for pulling carts or wagons e.g. a mule

[35] Et alterā diē prōtulit duōs dēnāriōs, et dedit stabulāriō, et ait: Cūram illīus habē: et quodcumque superērogāverīs, ego cum redierō reddam tibi.

“And on the next day he took out two denarii and gave (them) to the innkeeper, and said: ‘Look after him:  and whatever extra expense you may have [literally: whatever you may have spent more], I shall, when I return, give back.’”

quodcumque: whatever

02.12.25: Level 3; indefinites [14] -cumque [i]

https://adckl.blogspot.com/2025/09/021225-level-3-indefinites-14-cumque-i.html

[36] Quis hōrum trium vidētur tibi proximus fuisse illī, quī incīdit in latrōnēs?

“Which of these three seems to you to have been a neighbour to the one / man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

fuisse: perfect active infinitive

12.01.26: Level 3; indirect statement; the accusative-infinitive [9]; the perfect active infinitive [i]

https://adckl.blogspot.com/2025/11/120126-level-3-indirect-statement.html

[37] At ille dīxit: Quī fēcit misericordiam in illum. Et ait illī Iēsūs: Vāde, et tū fac similiter.

And he [i.e. the expert in the law] said, “The one who had mercy on him.” And Jesus said to him: “Go and do likewise.”

Level 4; literature; Vulgate: The Parable of the Good Samaritan [Luke 10:25–37] (1) comprehension

[25] Et ecce quīdam lēgisperītus surrēxit tentāns illum, et dīcēns: Magister, quid faciendō vītam aeternam possidēbō?

[26] At ille dīxit ad eum: In lēge quid scrīptum est? quōmodo legis?

[27] Ille respondēns dīxit: Dīligēs Dominum Deum tuum ex tōtō corde tuō, et ex tōtā animā tuā, et ex omnibus virtūtibus tuīs, et ex omnī mente tuā: et proximum tuum sīcut tēipsum.

[28] Dīxitque illī: Rēctē respondistī: hoc fac, et vīvēs.

[29] Ille autem volēns iūstificāre sēipsum, dīxit ad Iēsum: Et quis est meus proximus?

[30] Suscipiēns autem Iēsūs, dīxit: Homō quīdam dēscendēbat ab Ierusālem in Ierīchō, et incīdit in latrōnēs, quī etiam dēspoliāvērunt eum: et plāgīs impositīs abiērunt sēmivīvō relictō.

[31] Accidit autem ut sacerdōs quīdam dēscenderet eādem viā: et vīsō illō praeterīvit.

[32] Similiter et Lēvīta, cum esset secus locum, et vidēret eum, pertrānsiit.

[33] Samarītānus autem quīdam iter faciēns, vēnit secus eum: et vidēns eum, misericordiā mōtus est.

[34]  Et appropiāns alligāvit vulnera eius, īnfundēns oleum et vīnum: et impōnēns illum in iūmentum suum, dūxit in stabulum, et cūram eius ēgit.

[35] Et alterā diē prōtulit duōs dēnāriōs, et dedit stabulāriō, et ait: Cūram illīus habē: et quodcumque superērogāverīs, ego cum redierō reddam tibi.

[36] Quis hōrum trium vidētur tibi proximus fuisse illī, quī incīdit in latrōnēs?

[37] At ille dīxit: Quī fēcit misericordiam in illum. Et ait illī Iēsūs: Vāde, et tū fac similiter.

(1) Note the line number(s) referring to:

being attacked by robbers _____

being moved by pity _____

being specifically told to do something _____ / _____

giving somebody money _____

giving the correct answer _____

Jesus being tested _____

obtaining eternal life _____

people who pass by _____ / _____

placing somebody on a donkey _____

what the Law actually states _____

(2)

[i] Who begins this conversation? (1)

[ii] How does Jesus respond to the first question asked? (1)

(3)

[i] Which line marks the beginning of the parable? (1)

[ii] What question prompts Jesus to begin the parable? (1)

(4) Which one word in the passage emphasises that the man was very seriously beaten up? (1)

(5) Line 36: Quis hōrum trium vidētur tibi proximus fuisse illī, quī incīdit in latrōnēs? To which three people is Jesus referring? (3)

(6) How are the man’s wounds treated? (3)

____________________

(1)

being attacked by robbers: [30] incīdit in latrōnēs

being moved by pity: [33] misericordiā mōtus est

being specifically told to do something: [28] hoc fac; [37]: fac similiter

giving somebody money: [35] prōtulit duōs dēnāriōs, et dedit stabulāriō

giving the correct answer: [28] Rēctē respondistī

Jesus being tested: [25] tentāns illum

obtaining eternal life: [25] quid faciendō vītam aeternam possidēbō

people who pass by: [31] sacerdōs … praeterīvit;  [32]: Lēvīta … pertrānsiit

placing somebody on a donkey: [34] impōnēns illum in iūmentum suum

what the Law actually states: [27] Dīligēs … tēipsum

(2)

[i] A lawyer / expert in the law | lēgisperītus

[ii] He asks him what is written in the law / how he interprets the law (any one). | In lēge quid scrīptum est? quōmodo legis?

(3)

[i] line 30: “Homō quīdam…”

[ii] line 29: And who is my neighbour? | Et quis est meus proximus?

(4) sēmivīvō: (literally) half alive (or can be rephrased in this context: half dead)

(5) a priest (sacerdōs); a Levite (Lēvīta); a Samaritan (Samaritānus)

(6) bandaged (1); oil and wine (1) poured on them (1) | alligāvit vulnera eius (1) īnfundēns (1) oleum et vīnum (1)

Level 4; literature; Vulgate [8]: The Death of Jesus [3]; Mark 15: 33 – 39

[33] et factā hōrā sextā tenebrae factae sunt per tōtam terram usque in hōram nōnam

• And at the sixth hour [literally: with the sixth hour having happened / been made; ablative absolute], there was darkness over the whole earth until the ninth hour.

[34] et hōrā nōnā exclāmāvit Iēsus vōce magnā dīcēns Eloi Eloi lama sabachthanī quod est interpretātum: Deus meus Deus meus ut quid dērelīquistī mē

• And at the ninth hour, Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying: Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? Which is interpreted [as]: My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?

Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani; the words – from Psalm 22.1 – are delivered in Aramaic, which was most likely Jesus’ native language.

[35] et quīdam dē circumstantibus audientēs dīcēbant ecce Heliam vocat

• And some of those [who were] standing by, hearing [it], said: Look! He is calling Elijah.

[36] currēns autem ūnus et implēns spongiam acētō circumpōnēnsque calamō pōtum dabat eī dīcēns: sinite videāmus sī veniat Heliās ad dēpōnendum eum

• And one [person] running and filling a sponge with vinegar and putting it upon a reed, gave it to him to drink, saying: Leave him alone, let us see if Elijah will (may) come to take him down.

[i]  The use of participles – especially present active participles – contributes greatly to the narrative flow. All of them have been highlighted in all the extracts from the Vulgate, but line [36] is a very good example, depicting four events that take place in rapid succession or almost simultaneously. This is, of course, not exclusive to the Vulgate; Tacitus, for example, makes extensive usage of participles for the same purpose.

[ii]

(1) videāmus … | let us see …; subjunctive [hortative]

(2) sī veniat Heliās … | if / whether Elijah will (may) come

An indirect question i.e. ‘if’ in the sense of ‘whether (or not)’ is normally not introduced by sī, but there are occasional examples:

Vīsam ¦ sī domī est (Terence) | I will go see ¦ if he is at home.

CL uses sī to introduce a conditional clause, whereas an indirect question such as this would normally be introduced by utrum (whether).

12.07.26; Level 3+; Subjunctive [69] dependent uses [6] indirect questions (6); utrum … an …

https://adckl.blogspot.com/2026/02/120726-level-3-subjunctive-69-dependent.html

This usage with sī becomes common only in post-Classical / Late Latin.

[37] Iēsus autem ēmissā vōce magnā exspīrāvit

• And Jesus, having cried out with a loud voice [literally: with a great / loud voice having been let out; ablative absolute], breathed his last / expired.

[38] et vēlum templī scissum est in duo ā sūrsum usque deorsum

• And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from the top to the bottom.

[39] vidēns autem centuriō quī ex adversō stābat quia sīc clāmāns exspīrāsset ait: vērē hic homō Fīlius Deī erat

• And the centurion who stood over against him, seeing that, [while] crying out in this manner, he had breathed his last, said: Indeed this man was the son of God.

[i] vidēns … quia … | seeing … that …; the use of quod and quia to introduce an indirect statement is, apart from very specific circumstances, not a feature of CL

17.02.26: Level 3; indirect statement; the accusative-infinitive [24]: use of quod

https://adckl.blogspot.com/2025/11/170226-level-3-indirect-statement.html

[ii] exspīrāsset: an example of a syncopated or contracted verb form which refers to the omission of one or more sounds from a verb. This is not a random feature but commonly occurs with past tense verb forms where /v/ or /vi/ is part of the ending:

petīvērunt > petiērunt

Here: exspīrāvisset > exspīrāsset

[iii] the use of the subjunctive here aligns closely with its use in causal clauses i.e. what the soldier saw is being reported unlike other verbal statements earlier in the account which are presented as direct speech.

23.08.26; Level 3+; Subjunctive [90] dependent uses [15] reported / indirect reason: quod and quia

https://adckl.blogspot.com/2026/03/230826-level-3-subjunctive-90-dependent.html

Level 4; literature; Vulgate [7]: The Death of Jesus [2]; Mark 15: 21 – 32

[21] et angariāvērunt praetereuntem quempiam Simōnem Cyreneum venientem dē vīllā patrem Alexandrī et Rūfī ut tolleret crucem eius

• And they forced one Simon, a Cyrenian, [who was] passing by [while] coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and of Rufus, to take up his cross.

[i] angariāvērunt … quempiam Simōnem Cyreneum … | and they forced a certain Simon, a Cyrenian [or: a certain man from Cyrene, Simon …]

quispiam: here, it functions as an indefinite adjective conveying the idea of ‘some … or other’. Who he actually was is not the focus of the narrative, but was simply somebody who happened to be passing by at the time.

26.11.25: Level 3; indefinites [9]: -piam

https://adckl.blogspot.com/2025/08/261125-level-3-indefinites-9-piam.html

[ii] angariāvērunt … Simōnem …  ut tolleret crucem eius | and they forced … Simon … to take up his cross; subjunctive [indirect command]

angariō, -āre [1]: demand; compel 

Jesus, like other victims of crucifixion, was required to carry his own heavy cross, but was presumably so weakened by the cruel treatment at the hands of the soldiers, that he was unable to do so. A Roman soldier could have compelled anybody to assist but, in an already highly tense situation – as evidenced during the trial – it could have been politically explosive to order a member of the Jewish or Roman population. That the account specifically refers to a certain Simon from Cyrene indicates that [i] he just happened to be there, and [ii] he was a foreigner from North Africa. It is feasible that he did not know who Jesus was. That he was forced may suggest that he was unwilling to become involved, but had no choice.

In Luke 23:26, ‘choice’ is not even a consideration:

et cum dūcerent eum adprehendērunt Simōnem quendam Cȳrēnēnsem venientem dē vīllā et inposuērunt illī crucem portāre post Iēsum 

• And as they were leading him away, they laid hold of / seized one Simon of Cyrene, coming from the country; and they laid the cross on him to carry after Jesus.

The specific reference in Mark to Alexander and Rufus suggests that the names were meaningful to at least part of the intended audience, perhaps as a way of identifying which Simon was meant, since Simon was a very common name. Some commentators have attempted to connect Rufus with the Rufus mentioned in Epistle to the Romans 16:13, but such identifications remain speculative. Caution is therefore needed against building elaborate historical or theological interpretations upon what is, in Mark’s account, a brief detail.

Matthew 27:32 and Luke 23:26 both refer to Simon of Cyrene, but with no additional information.

In John 19:17 the entire incident is not recounted at all: et baiulāns sibi crucem exīvit in eum quī dīcitur Calvāriae locum hebraīce Golgotha 

• And bearing his own cross, he went forth to the place which is called Calvary, in Hebrew Golgotha.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_of_Cyrene

[22] et perdūcunt illum in Golgotha locum quod est interpretātum Calvāriae locus

• And they bring him into the place Golgotha, which, being interpreted, is The Place of Calvary / the Skull.

Golgotha, -ae [1/f] < Anc. Gk. Γολγοθᾶ [Golgothâ] and Aramaic גּוּלְגּוּלְתָּא [gulgultā]: skull

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g1115/kjv/tr/0-1/

https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/eastons-bible-dictionary/Golgotha

calvāria, -ae [1/f]: skull

The precise location and the reason for the name are debated.

[23] et dabant eī bibere murrātum vīnum et nōn accēpit

• And they gave him to drink wine mixed with myrrh: and he did not take (it).

murrātus, -a, -um: spiced or mixed with myrrh

myrrha, -ae [1/f] / murra, -ae [1/f]: myrrh

Mixed with wine, myrrh could have mildly sedative or analgesic effects.  

Again, the use of the imperfect tense (dabant) suggests an action that was either repeated or attempted, the latter known in grammar as conative.

[24] et crucifīgentēs eum dīvīsērunt vestīmenta eius mittentēs sortem super eīs quis quid tolleret

• And crucifying him, they divided his garments, casting lots upon them to see what each should take. [literally: who should take what.]

…quis quid tolleret | who should take what; subjunctive [indirect question]

[25] erat autem hōra tertia et crucifīxērunt eum

• And it was the third hour: and they crucified him.

[26] et erat titulus causae eius īnscrīptus rēx Iūdaeōrum

• And a notice of his accusation was written above: THE KING OF THE JEWS.

The accusation also serves as a warning against any Jewish attempt to assert authority over the territory.

[27] et cum eō crucifīgunt duōs latrōnēs ūnum ā dextrīs et alium ā sinistrīs eius

• And with him they crucify two thieves: one on his right, and the other on his left.

Translation can shape interpretation: latrō, -nis [3/m] can have a broader meaning than merely ‘thief’; the noun reflects the sense of Anc. Gk. λῃστής [lēistḗs], and it may also refer to a rebel or an insurgent, a crime for which crucifixion was a common Roman punishment.

Various translations of the Vulgate render latrōnēs as [i] robbers; thieves, and [ii] revolutionaries; rebels. They convey different ‘status’ in terms of the crimes committed. One version is cautious, merely describing them as ‘criminals’.

Again, we must avoid over-interpretation. On the one hand, Jesus is reduced to the humiliating status of a common criminal. Equally plausible, however, is that, placed between two rebels — together with the ‘warning sign’ above his head — he is being presented as a rebel leader.

“Scholars posit that these men are insurrectionists, possibly even Barabbas' accomplices, though we have no hard evidence of this.”

https://www.bibleref.com/Mark/15/Mark-15-27.html

The source of the suggestion that they are in some way associated with Barabbas is at:

Mark 15:7: erat autem quī dīcēbātur Barabbās quī cum sēditiōsīs erat vīnctūs quī in sēditiōne fēcerant homicīdium

• And there was one called Barabbas, who was put in prison with some seditious men, who in the sedition had committed murder.

Luke 23:19: quī erat propter sēditiōnem quandam factam in cīvitāte et homicīdium missus in carcerem.

• And he had been sent to jail on account of a certain insurrection carried out in the city, and murder.

However, in John 18:40, there is no suggestion that Barabbas was an insurgent, nor is there any indication that he had accomplices:

Clāmāvērunt ergō rūrsum omnēs, dīcentēs: Nōn hunc, sed Barabbam. Erat autem Barabbās latrō.

• They cried out again, “Not this man, but Barabbas!” Now Barabbas was a robber.

[28] et adimplēta est scrīptūra quae dīcit et cum inīquīs reputātus est

• And the scripture was fulfilled, which says: and he was counted among the transgressors

Note: this line is sometimes missing from English translations, or included as a footnote since it is generally interpreted as a scribal addition. Some manuscripts include here words similar to Luke 22:37:

dīcō enim vōbīs quoniam adhūc hoc quod scrīptum est oportet implērī in mē et quod cum iniūstīs dēputātus est 

• For I say to you that what has been written must still be fulfilled in me. And with the wicked was he reckoned.

Lines [29] – [31] extend the mockery beyond the soldiers; Jesus is subjected to humiliation by the religious authorities and ordinary passers-by:

[29] et praetereuntēs blasphēmābant eum moventēs capita sua et dīcentēs:  Vah! quī dēstruis templum Deī et in tribus diēbus reaedificās

• And those passing by blasphemed him, shaking their heads and saying: Ah, you who destroy the temple of God and build it again in three days:

[30] salvum fac tēmet ipsum dēscendēns dē cruce

• Save yourself, and come down from the cross [literally: (while) coming down from the cross]

It is a disdainful challenge expressed by a highly emphatic command: tē + -met | yourself, reinforced by ipsum.

[31] similiter et summī sacerdōtēs illūdentēs ad alterutrum cum scrībīs dīcēbant: aliōs salvōs fēcit sē ipsum nōn potest salvum facere

• In the same way the chief priests too, mocking, said to one another together with the scribes: He saved others [literally: he made others safe]; he cannot save himself.

ad alter¦utrum | literally: one … to the other i.e. it expresses a reciprocal action (one another):

alteruter, -tra, -trum: one or the other; one of two; either of two

[32] Chrīstus rēx Isrāhēl dēscendat nunc dē cruce ut videāmus et crēdāmus et quī cum eō crucifīxī erant convīciābantur eī

• Let Christ the king of Israel come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him, reviled him.

[i] Christus … dēscendat | Let Christ … come down; subjunctive [jussive]

[ii] ut videāmus et crēdāmus | (in order / so) that we may see and (may) believe; subjunctive [purpose]

Level 4: literature; Vulgate [6]: The Death of Jesus [1]; Mark 15: 15 – 20

There is a distinction between a factual account, and one that is matter-of-fact. The veracity or otherwise of the accounts of the death of Jesus will be determined by personal belief. Here, however, we examine the way in which the language is used to frame it.

Mark’s narrative of the crucifixion presents a rapid, condensed and utterly bleak picture. It reads more like restrained journalism than an emotional and biased account. However, it is that very detached and cold description that leaves readers to picture in their own minds the humiliation and brutality that Jesus experienced – and to draw their own conclusions.

What is remarkable about this account is its physicality: we see, for example, spitting, striking, and twisting, forcing, heavy lifting and running, crucifying, dying and ripping. Likewise, there is a powerful auditory element with numerous instances of direct speech, direct command, verbal mockery, shouting, blaspheming and scornful challenge.

Yet, in the midst of all of this, the one who barely utters a word is Jesus himself.

Again, the translations are largely my own and stay as close as possible to the original. Different editions of the Vulgate may have slight variations in spellings and word order.

[15] Pīlātus autem volēns populō satisfacere dīmīsit illīs Barabbān et trādidit Iēsum flagellīs caesum ut crucifīgerētur

• But Pilate, wanting to satisfy the people, released Barabbas to them, and handed over Jesus, beaten with whips, in order that he might be crucified.

[i] trādō, -ere [3]: hand over, but the verb – especially in military contexts – also implies an act of surrender. Pilate fears the repercussions of not acceding to the demands not only of the crowd but also local religious authorities. In other words, at this point at least, ‘mob rule’ wins.

[ii] Barabbās: an example of a Greek-type noun; proper nouns that derive from Ancient Greek sometimes retain the Greek case endings or the Greek endings are alternatives to the Latin.

The noun is classified as 1st declension masculine; note [i] the /n/ of the accusative and [ii] a vocative case ending that is not the same as the nominative

Nom: Barabbās

Gen: Barabbae

Dat: Barabbae

Acc: Barabbān

Abl: Barabbā

Voc: Barabbā

20.08.24: follow-up; food and drink [12]; vocabulary [2]: Greek-type nouns

https://adckl.blogspot.com/2024/07/200824-follow-up-food-and-drink-12.html

[iii] ut … crucifierētur | in order that he might be crucified; subjunctive [purpose]

[16] mīlitēs autem dūxērunt eum intrō in ātrium praetōriī et convocant tōtam cohortem

• But the soldiers led him inside into the courtyard of the praetorium*, and they call together the whole cohort.

* (here) the administrative headquarters at Jerusalem; some translations render praetōrium as ‘palace’

[17] et induunt eum purpuram et inpōnunt eī plectentēs spīneam corōnam

• And they clothe him in purple: and, twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it upon him.

[i] Note in [16] and [17] the use of the historical present: convocant, induunt, inpōnunt giving a greater sense of immediacy to the actions, in other words as if the reader were actually there.

[ii] induunt eum purpuram | they clothe him in purple

The soldiers mock Jesus by dressing him in the colour associated with kings and imperial authority. The famous Tyrian purple dye was produced from the secretion of Mediterranean sea snails, especially species of murex, vast numbers of which were needed to produce even a small quantity, thus making purple garments symbols of wealth, prestige and power.

One commentator (Wessel) has suggested that it was a scarlet military cloak: “a cast-off and faded rag, but with color enough left in it to suggest the royal purple.”

18.07.24: level 1; bright white (and purple) politicians

https://adckl.blogspot.com/2024/06/180724-level-1-bright-white-politicians.html

[18] et coepērunt salūtāre eum: avē rēx Iūdaeōrum

• And they began to salute him: Hail, king of the Jews.

i.e. a mocking perversion of the greeting traditionally afforded to Romans of the highest authority

et coepērunt salūtāre eum: “avē rēx Iūdaeōrum”

There are frequent occurrences of direct speech rather than 3^rd person reporting which, not unlike the historical present, brings the reader closer to the events.

[19] et percutiēbant caput eius harundine et cōnspuēbant eum et pōnentēs genua adōrābant eum

• And they kept striking his head with a reed: and they kept spitting on him, and, bowing their knees, they worshipped him.

The actions presented in [18] – [19] do not happen quickly. What we have here is relentless, varied, random and protracted.

[i] coepērunt salūtāre eum | they began to salute him; there is, however, no suggestion as to when that stopped

[ii] The imperfect tense can convey:

(1) repeated action:

percutiēbant caput eius | kept (on) striking his head

cōnspuēbant eum | kept (on) spitting on him

The translation of ‘kept (on) …ing’ reflects the intensity of what is nothing more than violent ‘schoolboy’ bullying performed by a callous band of soldiers.

One translation of the line includes ‘again and again’ to convey the sense of the imperfect tense.

(2) an action that continued for a period of time:

adorābant eum | they worshipped him [adored him; paid homage to him]

We can imagine the soldiers engaging in lengthy and / or varied displays of mock worship.

The translation of harundō, -inis [3/f] as ‘reed’ rather than ‘staff’ (as some versions have) nicely conveys a mock and limp alternative of, for example, a sceptre. The reed and the crown of thorns debase the conventional symbols of authority.

[iii] Note also the narration of events in threes, sometimes using the same grammatical structure, a feature prominent in, for example, the speeches of Cicero

et (1) percutiēbant caput eius harundine et (2) cōnspuēbant eum et pōnentēs genua (3) adōrābant eum

That same structure occurs in the next line:

[20] et postquam (1) inlūsērunt eī (2) exuērunt illum purpuram et (3) induērunt eum vestīmentīs suīs: ¦ et ēdūcunt illum ut crucifīgerent eum.

• And after (1) they had mocked him, (2) they took off the purple from him and (3) they put his own garments on him: ¦ and they lead him out to crucify him.

[i] ut crucifīgerent eum | literally: in order that they might crucify him = (in order) to crucify him; subjunctive [purpose]

[ii] Note: when two actions happen in the past – one after another – English most often will use ‘had’ (the past perfect) to refer to the action that took place first:

And after (1) they had mocked [past perfect] him, (2) they took off … [simple past]

That is not the case in Latin: both actions are expressed using the perfect tense:

et postquam (1) inlūsērunt [perfect] eī (2) exuērunt [perfect] illum purpuram

Level 4; literature; Vulgate [5]: Jesus sentenced to death [iii] Matthew 27.22-24

The same incident recounted in Matthew 27 contains the famous, or rather infamous statement that sealed the fate of Jesus – and those who condemned him.

Matthew 27.20-27

The first verse here clearly states that the main religious officials are responsible for influencing the mob:

(20) Prīncipēs autem sacerdōtum et seniōrēs persuāsērunt populīs ¦ ut peterent Barabbam, Iēsum vērō perderent.

• But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd ¦ that they should ask for [ = to ask for] Barabbas and have Jesus killed.

(21) Respondēns autem praeses, ait illīs: Quem vultis vōbīs dē duōbus dīmittī? At illī dīxērunt: Barabbam.

• And replying the governor said to them: “Which of the two do you wish to be released to you? And they said: “Barabbas.”

(22) dīcit illīs Pīlātus “quid igitur faciam dē Iēsū quī dīcitur Chrīstus?”

• Pilate says to them: What shall I do then with Jesus who is called Christ?

(23) dīcunt omnēs crucifīgātur ait illīs praeses quid enim malī fēcit at illī magis clāmābant dīcentēs crucifīgātur

• They all say; “Let him be crucified”. The governor says / said to them: “Why, what evil has he done?” But they cried out the more, saying: “Let him be crucified”.

(24) Vidēns autem Pīlātus ¦ quia nihil prōficeret, sed magis tumultus fieret, acceptā aquā, lāvit manūs cōram populō, dīcēns: Innocēns ego sum ā sanguine iūstī huius: vōs vīderitis.

The moment where Pilate rejects any personal responsibility:

• So Pilate, seeing that he was accomplishing nothing, but that the uproar was becoming greater, with water having been received [ = after he had taken water], he washed (his) hands in the presence of the people, saying: “I am innocent of the blood of this just man: it is you who will have seen to that.”

(26) Et respondēns ūniversus populus dīxit: Sanguis eius super nōs, et super fīliōs nostrōs.

• And the entire people replying said: “His blood (is) upon us, and upon our children.”

(27) Tunc dīmīsit illīs Barabbam: Iēsum autem flagellātum trādidit eīs ut crucifīgerētur.

• Then he released Barabbas to him, but Jesus, having been flogged [ = after he had been flogged], he handed over to them in order that he should be crucified [ = in order to be crucified].

Notes:

[i] subjunctive usage:

(a) indirect command

persuāsērunt populīs ¦ ut peterent Barabbam, Iēsum vērō perderent

• (they) persuaded the people ¦ that they should ask for [ = to ask for] Barabbas, and have Jesus killed

(b) jussive subjunctive

• crucifigātur: Let him be crucified.

https://adckl.blogspot.com/2026/01/280326-level-3-subjunctive-7.html

(c) purpose

• … ut crucifigerētur: …in order that he should be crucified [ = in order to be crucified]

https://adckl.blogspot.com/2026/02/090526-level-3-subjunctive-34-dependent.html

[ii] Again, we have an example of an indirect statement being introduced in the alternative Latin style with quia + subjunctive:

Vidēns autem Pīlātus quia nihil prōficeret, sed magis tumultus fieret

• And Pilate, seeing that he was accomplishing nothing, but (that) the uproar was becoming greater / increasing.

[iii] Quem vultis vōbīs dē duōbus dīmittī?

• Which of the two do you wish to be released to you?

dīmittere: to release > dīmittī (present passive infinitive): to be released

https://adckl.blogspot.com/2024/10/110125-level-2-passive-voice-19-present.html

[iv] Vōs vīderītis: You will have seen (to that) i.e. it is your responsibility

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0CgVGrn-AU

This is a staggering and disturbing depiction of the human dynamics of the event: the mob is terrifying, and the initial aggression and arrogance of Pilate is both utterly shattered and infused with fury at having been placed in this position. Note: the excerpt is graphically violent in its portrayal. 

innocēns ego sum ā sanguine iūstī huius

Level 4; literature; Vulgate [4]: Jesus sentenced to death [ii] Luke 23.20-25

Luke 23.20-25

(20) Iterum autem Pīlātus locūtus est ad eōs, volēns dīmittere Iēsum.

• And again Pilate, wanting to release Jesus, spoke to them.

(21) At illī succlāmābant, dīcentēs: Crucifīge, crucifīge eum.

• But they kept on shouting, saying “Crucify him, crucify him.”

(22) Ille autem tertiō dīxit ad illōs: Quid enim malī fēcit iste? nūllam causam mortis inveniō in eō: corripiam ergō illum et dīmittam.

• And he said to them for a third time: “What evil has this man done? I find in him no grounds for death [i.e. a death sentence]: therefore, I shall chastise and release him.

(23) At illī īnstābant vōcibus magnīs postulantēs ¦ ut crucifīgerētur: et invalēscēbant vōcēs eōrum.

• But, in loud voices, they continued to insist, demanding ¦ that he be crucified: and their voices grew stronger and stronger.

(24) Et Pīlātus adiūdicāvit fieri petītiōnem eōrum.

• And Pilate ruled [i.e. gave a legal ruling] that their demand be carried out.

(25) Dīmīsit autem illīs eum quī propter homicīdium et sēditiōnem missus fuerat in carcerem, quem petēbant: Iēsum vērō trādidit voluntātī eōrum.

• He released the man who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, whom they asked for, but he handed over Jesus to their will.

Notes:

[i] locūtus est < loquor, loquī, locūtus sum: speak; deponent verb:

https://adckl.blogspot.com/search/label/deponent%20verbs

[ii] indirect command + subjunctive

postulantēs ut crucifīgerētur

• demanding that he (should) be crucified

[iii] accusative-infinitive construction

Et Pīlātus adiūdicāvit fieri [infinitive] petītiōnem [accusative] eōrum.

Literally: Pilate adjudged their request ¦ to be done

>  Pilate ruled that their demand be carried out.

[iv] Pilate’s repeated attempts to quell the crowd: iterum; tertiō

[v] While the ‘baseline’ translation of the imperfect tense is “was / were doing something”, it also has iterative force implying that the same action happened repeatedly:

• illī succlāmābant: they kept on shouting
• illī īnstābant: they continued to insist

[vi] Again, the inchoative form of the verb suggests an escalation of the action:

• invalēscēbant vōcēs eōrum: their voices were growing stronger and stronger / were becoming louder and louder

[vii] This crowd is not making deferential requests – but uncompromising demands:

• Crucifīge, crucifīge eum!
• postulantēs ut crucifīgerētur

Does this suggest – and it is purely a personal interpretation – that Pilate, despite his political position, is ultimately weak? Roman governors existed to impose Roman authority, not negotiate with mobs. I cannot imagine that Caesar would have been subjected to such insolent and vociferous demands – and I do imagine that he would have dealt with it in a very different way.

[viii] Verse 25: Iēsum vērō trādidit voluntātī eōrum

i.e. the will of the crowd – rather than the legal will of Rome – prevailed

The informal phrase: “Caught between a rock and a hard place” depicts Pilate’s position, and the Vulgate well expresses it. On the one hand, Pilate should uphold Roman Law, for it is stated repeatedly that he sees no crime – and certainly not one that would warrant the most ignominious, prolonged and excruciating capital punishment of crucifixion. However, the collective, unremitting power of the crowd and religious officials overwhelms him; Judaea was not an easy province to control, and one does wonder whether – back in Rome – the last thing they wanted was more trouble for which Pilate would be held responsible. Later – in correspondence with the Emperor Trajan – we will look at the same challenges faced by Pliny the Younger as governor of Bithynia. In the end, Pilate does not act from a moral and legal standpoint, but out of political expediency and self-protection.

At illī succlāmābant, dīcentēs: Crucifīge, crucifīge eum.