Latin Language Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, teachers, and students wanting to discuss the finer points of the Latin language. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
According to BlueLetterBible, the Latin Vulgate translation of Matthew 26:49 states,
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?
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.
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.
'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.
