"Glaring errors" in the Douay-Rheims?

[Joel_Tunnah]

The problem with the Duay Reihms bible is that it has some glaring errors and some of the diffences in manuscript evidence are translated in favor of later manuscripts. I prefer the RSV-CE hands down. I wish it was the translation used in mass.

Maybe this got buried in the thread on recommended translations, or maybe mr East and West has no response. But I am extremely curious to know what folks out there consider to be “errors” in the Douay-Rheims (Challoner Revision). And merely saying “he copied from the King James” is NOT an acceptable answer. I want specific verses/words.

Do your worst!

 

[johnknoesel]

Well I do not know what this guys issue is with DR and the fact he states it was translasted from the Authorized Standard of 1611 aka KJV which is a complete falisy since the DR was translated, from the Latin Vulgate. " Douay-Rheims Version, Translated from the Latin Vulgate, Diligently Compared with the Hebrew, Greek,
and Other Editions in Divers Languages, THE OLD TESTAMENT
First Published by the English College at Douay,A.D. 1609 & 1610 and THE NEW TESTAMENT First Published by the English College at Rheims A.D. 1582 With Annotations The Whole Revised and Diligently Compared with the Latin Vulgate by Bishop Richard Challoner A.D. 1749-1752." by using his thought process then all translations are in error since all others were also translated from the 3 three sources of Latin, Greek and Hebrew. However I would like to see his examples of error.

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

I take it from the silence that “East and West” has no evidence to back up his/her statement.

Anyone else?

 

[EphelDuath]

There are some weird things in the Douay-Rheims. Like, “bring us this day our transubstantial bread?”

 

[Nita]

There are some weird things in the Douay-Rheims. Like, “bring us this day our transubstantial bread?”

Check again. It’s “supersubstantial”
The Greek word appears in the New Testament only twice - in Matthew and Luke where Jesus gives them the “Our Father”. The Greek word used there is completely different from the Greek word normally translated “daily”. My understanding is that “superstantial” is a very literal interpretation of the Greek.

Nita

 

[lak611]

Check again. It’s “supersubstantial”
The Greek word appears in the New Testament only twice - in Matthew and Luke where Jesus gives them the “Our Father”. The Greek word used there is completely different from the Greek word normally translated “daily”. My understanding is that “superstantial” is a very literal interpretation of the Greek.

Nita

Actually it only appears in Matthew 6:12. From the Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 11. Our supersubstantial bread.[2] So it is at present in the Latin text: yet the same Greek word in St. Luke, is translated daily bread, as we say it in our Lord’s prayer, and as it was used to be said in the second or third age, as we find by Tertullian and St. Cyprian. Perhaps the Latin word, supersubstantialis, may bear the same sense as daily bread, or bread that we daily stand in need of; for it need not be taken for supernatural bread, but for bread which is daily added, to maintain and support the substance of our bodies. (Witham) — In St. Luke the same word is rendered daily bread. It is understood of the bread of life, which we receive in the blessed sacrament. (Challoner) — It is also understood of the supernatural support of the grace of God, and especially of the bread of life received in the blessed eucharist. (Haydock) — As we are only to pray for our daily bread, we are not to be over solicitous for the morrow, nor for the things of this earth, but being satisfied with what is necessary, turn all our thoughts to the joys of heaven. (St. Chrysostom, hom. xx.)

“Supersubstantial” may sound odd, since it is an archaic term, but it is not an error.

 

[Nita]

Actually it only appears in Matthew 6:12. From the Haydock Commentary: “Supersubstantial” may sound odd, since it is an archaic term, but it is not an error.

The Greek text I have shows it in both Mt 6:11 and Luke 11:3. Perhaps the D-R chose to interpret it differently in Luke for some reason. Or there could be differences in the various Greek manuscripts. Anyone know?

Nita

 

[lak611]

The Greek text I have shows it in both Mt 6:11 and Luke 11:3. Perhaps the D-R chose to interpret it differently in Luke for some reason. Or there could be differences in the various Greek manuscripts. Anyone know?

Nita

According to the Haydock Commentary, it is translated “supersubstantial” from the Latin text, not the Greek text. The D-R is translated from Latin, not Greek. All of the other Bible translations are from a Greek text.

 

[Nita]

According to the Haydock Commentary, it is translated “supersubstantial” from the Latin text, not the Greek text. The D-R is translated from Latin, not Greek. All of the other Bible translations are from a Greek text.

Yes - Latin supersubstantialis
The Latin text was translated from the Greek.
The Haydock footnotes also tell us that altho the same Greek word is used in both Matthew and Luke, the Latin translation used different words.

Nita

 

[lak611]

Yes - Latin supersubstantialis
The Latin text was translated from the Greek.
The Haydock footnotes also tell us that altho the same Greek word is used in both Matthew and Luke, the Latin translation used different words.

Nita

That is correct.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The Greek text I have shows it in both Mt 6:11 and Luke 11:3. Perhaps the D-R chose to interpret it differently in Luke for some reason. Or there could be differences in the various Greek manuscripts. Anyone know?

Nita

“Supersubstantial” renders Greek epiousion. Epi does = super, & ousia does = substantia, in Christological discussion. But epiousion, as a single word, in NT Greek, does not mean what its two parts mean separately - it means “daily”.​

Without looking, I seem to recall that Matthew & Luke use different words.

A further layer of meaning is, that the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew is specifically eschatological - all of its petitions look for the coming of the Kingdom/Reign/Rule/Kingship of God. Compare Mark 1.15 - the Good News Jesus preaches is “the Good News of the Kingship/Reigning of God”.

 

[lak611]

Without looking, I seem to recall that Matthew & Luke use different words.

Mat 6:11 Give us this day our supersubstantial bread.

Luk 11:3 Give us this day our daily bread.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Mat 6:11 Give us this day our supersubstantial bread.

Luk 11:3 Give us this day our daily bread.

Thanks - I meant the *Greek *words ​

 

[lak611]

Thanks - I meant the *Greek *words ​

Here it is.

G1967
ἐπιούσιος
epiousios
ep-ee-oo’-see-os
Perhaps from the same as G1966; to-morrow’s; but more probably from G1909 and a derivative of the present participle feminine of G1510; for subsistence, that is, needful: - daily.

This is from Strong’s Concordance.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

The only errors I can think of are common to translations of that day, like

“only begotten” from vulgate rather then “unique” Son.

“whatever bound on earth will be bound in heaven” rather than “what is bound on earth has already been bound in heaven”

The addition of I John 5:7.

thats just offf the top of my head.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

also, virgin vs youn woman in Isaiah 7:14

Gen 3:15 [KJV] And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed; she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

oh, yes I think the original copy had two Psalm 10

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

also, virgin vs youn woman in Isaiah 7:14

Daniel, the DR has never used “young woman” instead of virgin.

Isaiah 7:14 (1752 Douay-Rheims Challoner Revision)
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.

And virgin is not an error. Only the corrupt, 10th century Masoretic Text uses “young woman”.

 

[inthecloud]

Remember, the Vulgate was translated from the Septuagint, not from the Masoretic text, that have been purged of many christian references.

 

[Manfred]

The Greek text I have shows it in both Mt 6:11 and Luke 11:3. Perhaps the D-R chose to interpret it differently in Luke for some reason. Or there could be differences in the various Greek manuscripts. Anyone know?

Nita

I wish I could remember where I read this, but it is said that the Greek word is packed with so much meaning that St Jerome had to render it in two different ways, “supersubstantial” in Matthew, “daily” in Luke, to bring out some of the meaning.

D-R in error? Them’s fightin’ words!

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi Manfred,

Here’s the Greek again, we’ll start with Luke which is clearer.
??? is the word in question.

Luke 11:3
τ-ον αρτ-ον ημων τ-ον επιουσι-ον
the/As bread/As of-us/Gp the/As ???/As

διδου ημιν το καθ ημερ-αν
give!/2sImp! to-us/Dp the/N/As according-to day/As

Luke already has an expression for daily – eg:according to day.
“Give us, according-to day, the bread of us * the ??? bread.”

The structure indicates there is more than one kind of “our bread/bread of us” which can be given daily, and a specific one qualified by ??? is intended.

Matth 6:11 τ-ον αρτ-ον ημων τ-ον επιουσι-ον δος ημιν σημερ-ον
Matth 6:11 the/As bread/As of-us/Gp the/As ???/As give/2sImp! to-us/Dp today/As

“Give to-us today, the bread of-us * the ??? bread”

If the word were truly a derivative of subsist, there ought to be some clear examples outside the bible – or perhaps I can look up a derivation and check the steps – so far nothing promising. It is true that επι could be formed by contractions from other words – as that is the problem with that particular prefix.

But, the very fact that the word is nearly unique, suggests that it is not a kind of bread people would normally have. Also, Since Luke and Matthew use the same phrase – epi-ousi-on ( επι-ουσι-ον) – there is a very good chance the word was coined for a reason specific to Jesus since Luke’s is writing for a different Greek audience than Matthew (the more Hebrew of the two). There is no poetic sound to explain the reason for redundancy in Luke’s version – Giving bread daily, gets the message across – rather than Matthew’s ‘today’ – so Luke had no reason to repeat it, except to mark the bread as special in some way.

There are examples of εκ-ουσι-ον, and περι-ουσι-ον, which means that if the word isn’t substance/wealth/material ουσι-α (because of a different gender), but is a distinct word ουσι-ον, or one formed by contraction – then it must have the same meaning as the other examples ending in ουσι-ον.

It looks very likely that the word could mean founded/upon/above(επι) - wealth/material/substance( ουσι-ον ).
A bread upon [another?] substance.

Also note the pun, “our bread” or “bread of us” – can mean we are the bread (the body of christ) which fits scripturally too.**