Matthew 6:11 in Douai-Rheims Bible: Anybody see this?

[RNRobert]

I purchased a Douai-Rheims Bible from TAN books several years ago. It is translated mostly from St Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. I liked the unabashedly Catholic notes by Bishop Challoner (as compared to some of the notes in the NAB ). One thing that puzzled me was this version’s translation of 6:11: “Give us this day our *supersubstantial *bread.” Where did that word come from??? I have some Bible software that shows this comes from *supersubstantialem *in the Latin Vulgate, but I still have no clue why they used that word instead of daily, which the DRB uses in Luke 11:2. However, I happened to come across paragraph 2837 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“*Daily” *(epiousios) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. Taken in a temporal sense, this word is a pedagogical repetition of “this day,” to confirm us in trust “without reservation.” Taken in the qualitative sense, it signifies what is necessary for life, and more broadly, every good thing sufficient for subsistence. Taken literally (*epi-ousios: "*super-essential") it refers directly to the Bread of Life, the Body of Christ, the “medicine of immortality,” without which we have no life in us. Finally, in this connection, it’s heavenly meaning is evident: “this day” is the Day of the Lord, the day of the feast of the kingdom, anticipated in the Eucharist that is already the foretaste of the kingdom to come. For this reason it is fitting for the Eucharistic liturgy to be celebrated each day.

WOW!!! I had thought TAN’s claim that the DRB was the most accurate Bible on the market to be advertising hype, but now I’m not so sure. It seems that St Jerome (and the DRB translators, really new what they were doing.

Anybody have any thoughts or comments on this?

 

[pnewton]

Where is the guy that dusted off his old Vine’s Dictionary when we need him. It appears only once in the New Testament? Then for a truly accurate rendition, you must look outside to use in other Koine Greek literature. Remember that the purpose of translation is accuracy, not bias. I doubt Vine’s or Thayer’s lexicons will rise to the level of scholarship needed. Does anyone have a Kittel’s?

Still, don’t you just love the layering of meaning brought our by the catechism. It is good to know that we can rest our faith in the Church of Jesus.

 

[DaveBj]

Thayer devotes slightly more than a column to epiousios; Vine slightly less than a column. It appears in the NT only in Matt. 6:11 and the parallel passage in Luke 11:3. According to Thayer, it was unknown in other Greek literature (Origen), so its meaning was derived from the Syriac manuscripts, where it is variously translated with a word meaning “the bread of our necessity” or a word meaning “continual.” The Itala (pre-Jerome Latin) has panis quotidianus, which is literally “daily bread.” Jerome translated it “panis supersubstantialis,” but only in Matt; I don’t know how he translated it in Luke–I don’t have access to my Vulgate right now (CD-ROM with other computer). I’ll check it out tonight at work and report back tomorrow.

Vine adds that the related word epiouse, used with the word hemera in Acts 7:26 and Acts 16:11, is translated “the next day.” It is a participle of the verb epeimi, which means “to approach, be at hand.”

The mystery surrounding this word was cleared up after Thayer (and perhaps Vines) wrote, when archeologists discovered a scrap of papyrus with a housewife’s shopping list. It included epiousios in a context that obviously meant “for the next day.” I don’t have documentation for this, but I will look.

DaveBj

 

[DaveBj]

DaveBj:

The mystery surrounding this word was cleared up after Thayer (and perhaps Vines) wrote, when archeologists discovered a scrap of papyrus with a housewife’s shopping list. It included epiousios in a context that obviously meant “for the next day.” I don’t have documentation for this, but I will look.

I tried to edit this to add some information and got a message that the administrators had banned my IP address; no idea why We’ll see if this goes through.

Found documentation on p. 217 of William Barclay’s The Gospel of Matthew from his Daily Study Bible series.

DaveBj

 

[Christy_Beth]

In Luke 11:3 it is “daily bread.”

 

[deogratias]

WOW!!! I had thought TAN’s claim that the DRB was the most accurate Bible on the market to be advertising hype, but now I’m not so sure. It seems that St Jerome (and the DRB translators, really new what they were doing.

The DRB was THE ONE AND ONLY CATHOLIC BIBLE for many years. And if my memory serves me, we were only to read it and not the King James or any other versions. I think that is where the myth came from that we Catholics were not allowed to read the Bible.

Mother Church just wanted to be sure we read one that was accurate.

I still read and refer to my DRB and compare it to some of the banal translations in some of the other versions today.

If less educated people could understand it in the past, why did translators think they had to dumb down the newer versions of the Bible and the Mass - all the beauty was lost in these newer translations.

 

[DaveBj]

Consulted my CD-ROM and other computerized study resources last night at work, and here’s what I came up with:

Matt. 6:11
NKJV: Give us today our daily bread.
Greek: *ton arton hemon ton epiousion dos hemin semeron.*Literal word-for-word: The bread of-us the daily give to-us today.
Vulgate: Panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie.
Literal: Bread our [whatever supersubstantialis means] give to-us today.

Luke 11:3
NKJV: Give us day by day our daily bread
Greek: ton arton hemon ton epiousion didou hemin to-kath’-hemeran.(the dashes indicate an idiom taken as a unit)
Literal: the bread of-us the daily give to-us day-by-day.
Vulgate: *Panem nostrum cotidianum da nobis cotidie.*Literal: bread our daily give to-us daily.

The difference in the Greek verbs (dos - didou) is that the former is aorist, indicating a one-time action (“Give!”), while the latter is present tense, indicating an on-going action (“Be giving!”). This appears to be driven by the adverb “today,” in Matthew, and the adverbial phrase “day by day,” in Luke.

However, the basic question remains unanswered: Why would Jerome translate epiousios as “daily” in one case, and as something else in another case?

DaveBj

 

[pnewton]

DaveBj:

However, the basic question remains unanswered: Why would Jerome translate epiousios as “daily” in one case, and as something else in another case?

DaveBj

Wow! Thanks for all the information. It feels like my old college days.

Even the best of translators can miss something now and then. This is why groups of linguist are used in modern efforts to translate. I wish to take nothing away from St. Jerome. He is, in my opinion, the sharpest linguists to ever live.

 

[squirt]

deogratias:

The DRB was THE ONE AND ONLY CATHOLIC BIBLE for many years. And if my memory serves me, we were only to read it and not the King James or any other versions. I think that is where the myth came from that we Catholics were not allowed to read the Bible.

Thread drift from somebody whose ancestors did not speak English … and not really addressed at the poster …

There are more languages out there than English … people from other linguistic groups also had Bibles that were CATHOLIC.

And the perception of not being allowed to read the Bible or being discouraged from reading the Bible is not limited to anglophones. In one of Julien Green’s biographical tomes, he alludes a few times to suspicions of fellow francophone Catholics aroused by his extensive reading of the Bible … it just wasn’t something you were ‘supposed’ to do.