Luke 9:55-56 (DR - RSV/CE & NAB)?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hishumbleservan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Minuscule 1071 (12th c., currently in Iviron Monastery, Mount Athos)
Minuscule 1241 (12th c., currently in St. Catherine’s Monastery in Sinai, Egypt)
Minuscule 1342 (13th/14th c., currently in Mar Saba Monastery, Jerusalem)
Minuscule 1675 (14th c., currently in St. Panteleimon’s Monastery, Mount Athos)

Family E of Byzantine Manuscripts (Uncials)

Codex Basilensis (E[sup]e[/sup], 8th c.; Constantinople?)
Codex Seidelianus I (G, 9th c.; Byzantine text with Caesarean readings)
Codex Seidelianus II (H; 9th c.)

Family K[sup]1[/sup] of Byzantine Manuscripts (Uncials)

Codex Vaticanus 354 (S, 949)
Codex Mosquensis II (V, 9th c.)
Codex Athous Dionysiou (Ω, 9th c.; currently in Dionysiou Monastery in Mount Athos)

Latin

Codex Fuldensis (F, ca. 545; Latin Vulgate, gospels in a harmonized form)
Codex Rehdingeranus (l, ca. 750; Vetus Latina with Vulgate readings)
Codex Sangermanensis I (g[sup]1[/sup], 822; Latin Vulgate with Vetus Latina text for Matthew)

Syriac Sinaiticus (late 4th century)
Coptic (Sahidic)
Ethiopian manuscripts

Authors

St. Basil the Great (329/330-379)

Those are the witnesses which omit 55b-56a. Witnesses which include the text in question are divided: some have only 55b, others have only 56a, while still others (the majority) have both. Manuscripts in the Bohairic dialect of Coptic have only 56b. As for those which only have 55a, we have the 5th century Greek and Latin Codex Bezae (D, Western text), St. John Chrysostom (c. 347-407), and St. Epiphanius of Salamis (ca. 310-320 - 403).

All the rest have both verses. In Greek uncials, it begins to pop up in manuscripts dating from around the 9th century such as Codex Koridethi (Θ), Codex Campianus (M), Petropolitanus (Π). Most Syriac versions and Latin manuscripts also contain these verses, plus the Armenian and the Gothic versions. Our very first explicit witness to this text is St. Ambrose of Milan (ca. 340-397), although it is likely that it was already known to the 2nd century heretic Marcion, who had produced his own version of the gospel of Luke.

Having a break.
Impressive! I am sincerely very thankful for your help in understanding the textual evidence behind these verses of St. Luke. I am humbled by the depth of the evidence and by your knowledge of it! I hope to one day be as familiar as you with the ancient manuscripts.
Please continue as you see fit and God bless you!
 
One of the reasons I love to read scripture is to follow the sayings of Jesus Christ. As a matter of routine, I compare scriptures across 3 different translations (Douay-Rheims (D-R), Revised Standard-Catholic Edition (RSV-CE) and the New American Bible (NAB). Recently, I came across John 9:55-56.
The D-R states:"(55) And turning, he rebuked them, saying: You know not what spirit you are. (56) The Son of man came not to destroy souls, but to save. And they went into another town.
The NAB states: (55) Jesus turned and rebuked them, (56) and they journeyed to another village.
The RSV-CE states something similar to the NAB version.

I believe the NAB and RSV-CE versions come from older manuscripts which did NOT contain the quote attributed to Jesus found in the D-R version. If the manuscripts used in the D-R (which are essentially the manuscripts used by St. Jerome when he compiled the Latin Vulgate) are relatively “newer” than those used in the NAB and RSV-CE, then doesn’t that mean that someone added the quote making the source used by St. Jerome inaccurate?
How could you possiibly make this assumption without knowing the manuscripts Jerome had at his disposal?
What is the oldest copy of Luke available to us today?
 
In nearly every succeeding translation of the bible when it comes to a choice between a longer textual varient and a shorter textual varient–the SHORTER one usually wins.

In other words the bible is progressively?–most times I say watch out whenever you hear the word progressively–getting shorter.

Ask yourself this question–would the devil want the bible to get shorter and shorter and shorter?

Also for what it is worth I think that Westcott and Hort should not be worshipped!

Another thing–you’ll hear “Eclectic” used a lot when it comes to bible translation–I guess that’s supposed to impress someone or make someone think that whoever used that word is sophisticated.

Why don’t they just come out and say–look we choose whatever varients we want to choose–there really is no consistency into how we make our choices.

Also the oldest varient does not necessarily mean that it is the most accurate varient.

Also having more examples of a varient textual choice in no way means that that choice is more accurate either.

I NEVER have heard a good argument as to why a Catholic should put more stock into the textual vareint choices of a Protestant translator.

“Modern Scriptural Scholarship says”–ever heard that one? Who cares? Many modern scriptural scholars don’t believe in the actual absolute historical FACT of the Resurrection of Jesus. Many modern scriptural scholars believe that gay marriage is a good thing. And we should listen to modern scriptural scholarship–which modern sciptural scholarship?

Didn’t mean to throw a monkey wrench here–what I’m saying is not meant in any way against patrick 457–it is meant to the original poster of the thread.

My advice is to be careful about who you believe. The Douay Rheims is in no way perfect–the Novav Vulgata is in no way perfect but BOTH are better than you get in most other modern bible translations–though sometimes I would even admit that modern bible translations do sometimes get it right.

Which comes to my dream that will never happen but should. The Holy See should every ten years in every language of the world put out what it thinks is the most accurate translation of the bible.

If they did that wouldn’t be perfect either–but the “Modern” part of the equation would be taken out of the picture and I think we would be closer to ACCURACY.

I don’t mean to sound simplistic either–sometimes it’s just really hard to know which textual varient to choose when it comes to bible translation–but in that event I would like more translators who view the bible through the lens of the Catholic Church over the centuries. In other words only make the bible better when you are pretty sure you are indeed making it better and by better I mean as close to possible as to what the Holy Spirit inspired the original bible writer to write. Yes that is difficult!

Avoid modernism. Avoid Protestantism. Embrace Catholicism. Embrace the Nova Vulgata as a good reference base.
 
Ever notice that, during the mass, the doxology of the Lord’s prayer (for Thine is the Kingdom…) is purposefully separated from the main body of the prayer? Turns out that the doxology was not in all manuscripts, either. So, the Church split the difference and kept it, but separated it so as not to de facto add it to the prayer.

The Knox Bible includes these two verses. The perennial favorite Confraternity Bible 👍 also includes them, being Vulgate based. Sadly, it is not online that I can find.
 
Ever notice that, during the mass, the doxology of the Lord’s prayer (for Thine is the Kingdom…) is purposefully separated from the main body of the prayer? Turns out that the doxology was not in all manuscripts, either. So, the Church split the difference and kept it, but separated it so as not to de facto add it to the prayer.
I should also mention that while the doxology is almost universal in the Eastern rites, it’s practically unknown historically in Western liturgies. The Roman rite Mass only adopted it in the Ordinary Form; if you’ll notice, the EF (aka the Tridentine Mass) did not have the doxology at all. Neither did the Mozarabic (not even in its revised form) nor the Ambrosian, nor AFAIK did other Western liturgies. One might thus argue that the insertion of the doxology in the OF is a non-organic ‘innovation’. (But I’m not going into that right now. Note that I’m not saying that the OF is invalid or that it is somehow ‘less Catholic’ or anything.)

What you have in most liturgies after the Our Father is the Embolism, a prayer taking up and expanding on the last petition (“Deliver us from evil”). This is the version that was originally used in the Roman Rite.

Deliver us, we beseech you, O Lord, from every evil, past, present and future; and by the intercession of the blessed and glorious ever virgin, Mary mother of God, together with your blessed apostles Peter and Paul and Andrew, and all the Saints, graciously grant peace in our days, that, by the help of your mercy, we may be always free from sin and safe from all distress. Through the same Jesus Christ, your Son, our Lord, who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, (aloud) forever and ever.
(Amen.)

The OF has a truncated version which is designed to segue into the doxology: “Deliver us, Lord, we pray, from every evil, graciously grant peace in our days, that, by the help of your mercy, we may be always free from sin and safe from all distress, as we await the blessed hope and the coming of our Saviour, Jesus Christ.”
The Knox Bible includes these two verses. The perennial favorite Confraternity Bible 👍 also includes them, being Vulgate based. Sadly, it is not online that I can find.
It might interest you to know that the Vulgate - even the Clementine - doesn’t have the doxology either. I don’t know if you can read Latin, but here’s the earliest manuscripts of the Vulgate, Codex Fuldensis (AD 541-546) and Codex Amiatinus (8th century) compared with the Clementine for the relevant passage.

(Fuldensis)

(Matt. 6:7) orantes autem nolite multum loqui sicut ethnici· putant enim quia in multiloquio suo exaudiantur· (8) nolite ergo adsimilari eis· scit enim pater uester quibus opus sit uobis antequam petatis eum· (Lk. 11:1) Tunc dixit unus ex discipulis eius ad eum· domine doce nos orare· sicut iohannes docuit discipulos suos· (Lk. 11:2; Matt. 6:9-10) et ait ilis cum orates dicite· pater noster qui in caelis es· sanctificetur nomen tuum· ueniat regnum tuum· fiat voluntas tua· sicut in caelo et in terra·
(Matt. 6:11; Lk. 11:3) panem nostrum supersubstantialem cotidianum da nobis die· (Matt. 6:12) et demitte nobis debita nostra· sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris (13) et ne inducas nos in temtationem sed libera nos a malo· (14) si enim dimiseritis hominibus peccata eorum dimittet et uobis pater uester caelestis delicta uestra
(15) Si autem non dimiseritis hominibus nec pater uester dimittet uobis peccata uestra·

===

(Amiatinus)

(6:7) Orantes autem nolite multum loqui sicut ethnici; putant enim quia in multiloquio suo exaudiantur. (8) Nolite ergo assimilari eis: scit enim pater vester quibus opus sit vobis ante quam petatis eum. (9) Sic ergo vos orabitis Pater noster qui es in caelis, sanctificetur nomen tuum, (10) adveniat regnum tuum, fiat voluntas tua sicut in caelo et in terra, (11) panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie, (12) et dimitte nobis debita nostra sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris, (13) et ne inducas nos in temtationem, sed libera nos a malo. (14) Si enim dimiseritis hominibus peccata eorum, dimittet et vobis pater vester caelestis delicta vestra; (15) si autem non dimiseritis hominibus, nec pater vester dimittet peccata estra.

===

(Clementine)

7 Orantes autem, nolite multum loqui, sicut ethnici, putant enim quod in multiloquio suo exaudiantur. 8 Nolite ergo assimilari eis: scit enim Pater vester, quid opus sit vobis, antequam petatis eum. 9 Sic ergo vos orabitis:

Pater noster, qui es in cælis,
sanctificetur nomen tuum.
10 Adveniat regnum tuum ;
fiat voluntas tua, sicut in cælo et in terra.
11 Panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie,
12 et dimitte nobis debita nostra,
sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris.
13 Et ne nos inducas in tentationem,
sed libera nos a malo. Amen.

14 Si enim dimiseritis hominibus peccata eorum: dimittet et vobis Pater vester cælestis delicta vestra. 15 Si autem non dimiseritis hominibus: nec Pater vester dimittet vobis peccata vestra.
 
I should also mention that while the doxology is almost universal in the Eastern rites, it’s practically unknown historically in Western liturgies. The Roman rite Mass only adopted it in the Ordinary Form; if you’ll notice, the EF (aka the Tridentine Mass) did not have the doxology at all. Neither did the Mozarabic (not even in its revised form) nor the Ambrosian, nor AFAIK did other Western liturgies. One might thus argue that the insertion of the doxology in the OF is a non-organic ‘innovation’.

(Clementine)

7 Orantes autem, nolite multum loqui, sicut ethnici, putant enim quod in multiloquio suo exaudiantur. 8 Nolite ergo assimilari eis: scit enim Pater vester, quid opus sit vobis, antequam petatis eum. 9 Sic ergo vos orabitis:

Pater noster, qui es in cælis,
sanctificetur nomen tuum.
10 Adveniat regnum tuum ;
fiat voluntas tua, sicut in cælo et in terra.
11 Panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie,
12 et dimitte nobis debita nostra,
sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris.
13 Et ne nos inducas in tentationem,
sed libera nos a malo. Amen.

14 Si enim dimiseritis hominibus peccata eorum: dimittet et vobis Pater vester cælestis delicta vestra. 15 Si autem non dimiseritis hominibus: nec Pater vester dimittet vobis peccata vestra.[/INDENT]
I see, from the examples you have given, that only the Clementine version has Matthew’s inexplicable, poorly understood and much debated “supersubstantialem” (modifying “bread”) in it. A story behind that, I’m sure.

As to “non-organic” insertions, this also appears to apply to the early non-universality of the scriptures used in the nascent Church. Not every primitive Christian community had every scripture, but somewhere in the Church, som communities did and what we have today was also used back then. And, I think that is the principle used in incorporating the doxology: a type of “big picture” view as to including sources, which is consistent with a universal Church.
 
With all the different manuscript families and variations out there, it still amazes me that there are still KJV, DR, RSV, etc onlyists out there. After all these are English translations of the original languages (or sometimes a secondary language - Latin). Not to diminish any translation (or their importance to a church tradition), but they are that -** translations.** This is a good reason to use several translations when doing Bible studies!
 
I see, from the examples you have given, that only the Clementine version has Matthew’s inexplicable, poorly understood and much debated “supersubstantialem” (modifying “bread”) in it. A story behind that, I’m sure.
No, Fuldensis and Amiatinus also have it. Fuldensis - because it’s a gospel harmony - combines supersubstantialem (Matthew) and cotidianum (Luke).
 
I always wonder what Aramaic words Jesus COULD HAVE used when He taught the disciples The Our Father. Does anyone know if there are Aramaic words that would mean something like supersubstantial? or daily" bread?

Though we don’t have any examples of it–didn’t Matthew produce a version of his gospel in Aramaic?

Was there any group of words that would connote both “daily” and something more like supersubstantial or did Jesus probably mean just one or the other?

Was Jesus meaning our daily needs such as food–daily communion(the eucharist) or both?

I think he meant both but I can’t prove that. What do Aramaic language experts think?

If Matthew first wrote his gospel in Aramaic or Hebrew and then translated it himself into Greek later–would the Greek be inspired or not?
 
I always wonder what Aramaic words Jesus COULD HAVE used when He taught the disciples The Our Father. Does anyone know if there are Aramaic words that would mean something like supersubstantial? or daily" bread?

Though we don’t have any examples of it–didn’t Matthew produce a version of his gospel in Aramaic?

Was there any group of words that would connote both “daily” and something more like supersubstantial or did Jesus probably mean just one or the other?

Was Jesus meaning our daily needs such as food–daily communion(the eucharist) or both?

I think he meant both but I can’t prove that. What do Aramaic language experts think?

If Matthew first wrote his gospel in Aramaic or Hebrew and then translated it himself into Greek later–would the Greek be inspired or not?
Interesting questions. I know that Syriac is very similar to Aramaic, but I believe that Syriac translations are somewhat “reverse-enginieered” and may not reflect the original with 100% accuracy. There is a Syriac speaking CAF member, but I have not seen him active for awhile.

As to translations and inspiration, here is an excerpt from the 1967 Papal Edition of the Confraternity Bible:
Translations of the Bible are absolutely without error only in so far as they accurately express the ideas as written by the inspired author in the original language.
Without the Magisterium and obedience, where would we be?
 
I’m glad we have the magisterium and I trust it.

I don’t trust bible translators.

All of them are not bad but enough of them are bad enough to mess up bible translations.

The only good thing about that is that it kind of forces one to read many different translations to find out the truth. Jesus said we are to “love the Lord with all our mind”.

I wish the magisterium would help us out more when it comes to bible translation but all things happen for a reason.

We aren’t promised a bowl of cherries–we now see blindly but in heaven we shall see “face to face”.

St. Jerome–pray for us.
 
Interesting questions. I know that Syriac is very similar to Aramaic, but I believe that Syriac translations are somewhat “reverse-enginieered” and may not reflect the original with 100% accuracy. There is a Syriac speaking CAF member, but I have not seen him active for awhile.
Syriac is an Aramaic language. Now Syriac isn’t exactly identical to the (now-extinct) form of Aramaic Jesus would have spoken, because it’s in a different branch - a different side of the family, if you will. Syriac, and virtually most surviving dialects of modern Aramaic today (say, Chaldean or Assyrian), belong to the so-called Eastern Aramaic family. Meanwhile, ancient Palestinian Aramaic would have belonged to the Western Aramaic family. Most members of this language family are now dead: in fact, only one Western Aramaic language survives today - Western Neo-Aramaic, spoken in three remote villages in the mountains of western Syria.
 
I always wonder what Aramaic words Jesus COULD HAVE used when He taught the disciples The Our Father. Does anyone know if there are Aramaic words that would mean something like supersubstantial? or daily" bread?

Though we don’t have any examples of it–didn’t Matthew produce a version of his gospel in Aramaic?

Was there any group of words that would connote both “daily” and something more like supersubstantial or did Jesus probably mean just one or the other?

Was Jesus meaning our daily needs such as food–daily communion(the eucharist) or both?

I think he meant both but I can’t prove that. What do Aramaic language experts think?

If Matthew first wrote his gospel in Aramaic or Hebrew and then translated it himself into Greek later–would the Greek be inspired or not?
The problem here is the Greek word epiousios. It only appears in both Matthew’s and Luke’s versions of the Our Father and is attested nowhere else in Greek literature, although a highly-similar word, epiousē, can be found in Acts (7:26; 16:11; 20:15; 21:18; 23:11), where it used in the sense of ‘next’ (tē epiousē [hēmera], “the next [day]”). Supersubstantialis is really a hyper-literal rendering of the word based on breaking epiousios down into its perceived roots: epi- (‘above’, Latin super) and ousia (‘substance’, ‘being’; Latin substantia). Speaking of epiousē “next [day”/“tomorrow,” St. Jerome himself noted that in a ‘Hebrew’/Aramaic document which he calls ‘the Gospel of the Hebrews’ used by a Jewish Christian group he calls the “Nazarenes” (which he believed to be the “oracles of the Lord in the Hebrew dialect” the 2nd century writer Papias spoke about, but is more likely to be a work used by that particular sect), the word used is *maḥar, ‘tomorrow’.

In the gospel which is named ‘according to the Hebrews’, instead of “supersubstantial bread” (supersubstantiali pane) I found mahar, which means ‘tomorrow’s,’ (crastinum) so that the sense is: “Our bread for tomorrow (that is, “for the future”) give us today.”

A scholar named Maurice Casey - who is a proponent of Aramaic sources underlying the gospels, especially Mark and the phantom ‘Q’ - had argued that these ‘Nazarenes’ are more likely to have preserved the original wording of Jesus’ prayer than to have back-translated it from Greek, since they apparently said it in Aramaic themselves, so in his opinion the authenticity of maḥar should be accepted. Plus, he thinks that the adjective epiousios (attested nowhere else, as in above) is a back-formation from epiousē and argues that it is less likely that two translators did so independently. Ergo, both Matthew and Luke in his theory used the same Greek translation of an Aramaic original, which they both edited.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top