According to BlueLetterBible, the Latin Vulgate translation of Matthew 26:49 states,

BlueLetterBible, Matt. 26:49, Vulgate

The Greek text from the Textus Receptus states,

ΜΘʹ καὶ εὐθέως προσελθὼν τῷ Ἰησοῦ εἶπεν Χαῖρε ῥαββί καὶ κατεφίλησεν αὐτόν TR, 1550

I assumed the Latin translation of Χαῖρε to be Ave, but what is Have? Is that a typo?

  • 3
    My Colunga-Turrado edition of the Vulgata Clementina has "Ave" here.
    – brianpck
    Commented Jan 9, 2017 at 4:38
  • Possibly assimilation to a 'hard H' pronunciation of Haire / Χαῖρε.
    – Hugh
    Commented Jan 9, 2017 at 14:03
  • See also: latin.stackexchange.com/questions/15836/… Commented Mar 6, 2023 at 1:49

3 Answers 3


It's an alternate form of ave; the L&S entry gives a couple of examples.

Presumably this form arose through hypercorrection: since h was generally not pronounced in popular speech, confusion easily arose about which words did and did not contain it. Catullus makes fun of a certain Arrius who inserted h's where they weren't needed.

  • 7
    I prefer to call him Harrius.
    – Joonas Ilmavirta
    Commented Jan 9, 2017 at 11:39
  • Et vīvēbat in aedibus Gestātiōnis Ligustrōrum numerō quattuor signātis.
    – Canned Man
    Commented Aug 27, 2022 at 11:12

There is a longstanding view that the interjection ave is not the imperative of the verb aveo “to long for”, but is a loan from Punic ḥawe (tentative vocalisation), the imperative of the Semitic verb ḥ-w-h “to live”. The first attestations are in Plautus, who also uses the plural havo (=Punic ḥawū) three times in his Poenulus. If this is true, then have would actually be the etymologically correct spelling.

See the discussion in Walde, Lat. Etym. Wb., who comes out in favour of this analysis. By contrast, de Vaan, Etym. dict. of Latin does not even mention it as a possibility.

  • 3
    De Vaan (unfortunately) excludes loanwords completely, so his lack of an entry for ave may actually mean he accepts the Phoenician etymology. The connection with the verb meaning "long for" does seem semantically difficult; L&S list the words separately. Weiss lists ave as a Phoenician loanword, without discussion.
    – TKR
    Commented Sep 15, 2017 at 2:05

'Have' is a variation albeit not popular, of 'ave'. Please be advised. It can be seen in some inscriptions. Check out the wiki page of ave, with the image if it is still there.

  • 1
    Welcome to the site, Jondel! Can you edit your answer to add a link, and perhaps the image itself (with proper attribution)?
    – Joonas Ilmavirta
    Commented Jul 19, 2018 at 9:37

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.