The our father in the douay rheims

[Harvester1867]

Any thoughts on the our father in the Douay Rheims as to why it mentioned the words ( super substantial bead) as apposed to our daily bread… as a catholic i believe in the true presence in the eucharist but was this what the text says in the original greek ? Or is there an obvious catholic bias here ?? Im sure this has been asked many times before

 

[Vico]

Any thoughts on the our father in the Douay Rheims as to why it mentioned the words ( super substantial bead) as apposed to our daily bread… as a catholic i believe in the true presence in the eucharist but was this what the text says in the original greek ? Or is there an obvious catholic bias here ?? Im sure this has been asked many times before

Luke 11, 3 Haydock Commentary

Verse 3: the Greek it is called epiousion; i.e. supersubstantial. This is not the bread that goeth into the body, but the bread of eternal life, that supports the life of the soul. It is here called daily bread. Receive then daily, what will daily profit you; and continue so to live, that you may be daily in proper dispositions for receiving it. All who are under sin, have received a wound, and must seek for a cure. The cure is this heavenly and most venerable sacrament. (St. Augustine, Serm. ii. de verbo Dei.)

Matthew 6, 11 Haydock Commentary

Verse 11: Supersubstantialem, Greek: epiousion, which Greek word is translated, quotidianam, Luke xi. 3. So it is expounded by St. John Chrysostom Greek: om xv. p. 138. Greek: ti estin ton arton ton epiousion. St. Gregory of Nyssa (tom. i, p. 750, Edit. Paris. an. 1638) calls it, Greek: o artos tes semerines chreias esti. Panis hodiernæ, or quotidianæ necessitatis. Suidas expounds it, Greek: o te onsia emon armozon, qui est conveniens nostræ substantiæ or Greek: o kathemerinos, quotidianus.

 

[Fauken]

Any thoughts on the our father in the Douay Rheims as to why it mentioned the words ( super substantial bead) as apposed to our daily bread… as a catholic i believe in the true presence in the eucharist but was this what the text says in the original greek ?

Supersubstantial is correct. The Douay-Rheims is translated from the Latin Vulgate. And in Matthew’s Gospel, the line is:

“6:11 Panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie,”

However, in Luke’s Gospel, we have:

“11:3 Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie.”

So what’s the deal? There was a thread on this years ago:

Supersubstantial bread? Sacred Scripture

My desire to get the Douay bible was briefly derailed by Matt 6:11, which is rendered: “Give us this day our supersubstantial bread” While I chalk it up to some weird ye olde days rendering, I pulled up the vulgate: "Panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie," This is retained in the Nova Vulgata, in case anyone want to claim Pre-Vatican II stuff can be ignored. And compare to Pater Nostra "Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie" Clearly, there is a good reason why our church want…

 

[Harvester1867]

Thanks ! I appreciate the answer

 

[Harvester1867]

Thanks fauken !

 

[HomeschoolDad]

It is true that a literal translation of the Our Father would “sound different” to English-speaking ears, but the classical version, which is basically taken from the KJV, is one of the few things that all Christians can agree upon.

I have maintained before that English-speakers, especially those who have been schooled in, and appreciate, “the King’s English”, have a better ability to appreciate what a good English translation should sound like, than non-native English speakers in the Roman Church, for whom English is “just another language”, an annoying, ugly Anglo-Saxon argot — “Yiddish for gentiles” — that has unfortunately become the world’s lingua franca.

 

[OddBird]

The Our Father is the only place in the New Testament where the word ἐπιούσιος epiousios appears. That makes comparison of use a bit difficult.

Grammatically, it is a participle of the verb ἔπειμι epeimi, which means (among others) “going toward”, “being to come”. It’s been understood to mean “daily”, as in “the bread which is to come for today”.

But theologians have very quickly picked up the possible “double entendre”, as ἐπιούσιος can be separated into the prefix ἐπι epi, which can mean “on” or “over” (the equivalent of “super” in latin), and ὀυσίος ousios, which to my knowledge does not exist on its own, without a prefix, but which can be understood as an adjective related to the word ὀυσία ousia, “essence” or “substance”.

That’s why some translations go from “daily” to “over the substance” – supersubstantial. Of course, choosing to translate it in this way is already interpreting the text by choosing the meaning which is probably the less immediate and the most clearly referencing, not what we need to stay alive physically, but the Eucharist.

Edited to fix a French slip-up

 

[adamhovey1988]

I actually LOVE the translation. Partially because it is so out of the ordinary.

 

[Harvester1867]

Im happy to see this is not portraying a negative image of the Douay-Rheims. Im happy i asked the question

 

[John_Martin]

“the King’s English”,

Did the KING, in faithfulness to the Catholic Church, the Magisterium, etc., search high and low for an English word or phrase that agreed with Catholic teaching on the Supersubtantiality of the Bread being prayed for?
Or in Protest and a Protestant did he pick an English word that most protesting theologians would agree to (“daily” bread)?

We hear the term, “Authorized Version” - authorized by Rome? No, but by a Protesting King standing in opposition to Rome and its Apostolic Authority to make known the meaning of Scripture.

I will imagine this King also began the protest that “Doing Penance” should be translated “repent” and meant simply saying, “I’m sorry.”

 

[po18guy]

Look at the big picture: Nearly all Churches believed in the true presence, even after the reform. The Anglican Church, which produced the King James Version, most certainly believed in the true presence and had the true presence until much later in the game (see: Edwardine Ordinance). Supersubstantial per se was not at issue, so the language used was not disputed; thus no “bias” in the translation.

Looking for bias? No better place than the post-reform bible world. The bias has been inserted (some would say inveigled its way) into nearly all modern translations of the bible. In fact, the Oxford-Cambridge Revised English Bible was edited with the intent of removing denominational bias - and they are Protestant!

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

“the King’s English”,

Did the KING, in faithfulness to the Catholic Church, the Magisterium, etc., search high and low for an English word or phrase that agreed with Catholic teaching on the Supersubtantiality of the Bread being prayed for?
Or in Protest and a Protestant did he pick an English word that most protesting theologians would agree to (“daily” bread)?

We hear the term, “Authorized Version” - authorized by Rome? No, but by a Protesting King standing in opposition to Rome and its Apostolic Authority to make known the meaning of Scripture.

I will imagine this King also began the protest that “Doing Penance” should be translated “repent” and meant simply saying, “I’m sorry.”

I was using the phrase “the King’s English” to denote proper English, written and spoken as it is supposed to be, with elegance and grace. It was not a reference to King James himself.

I am well aware that “Authorized Version” doesn’t mean a hill of beans. And I am aware, as well, that the KJV renders “do penance” as “repent”, which are two different concepts.

Just to throw it out there, what about the word “needful”? “Give us this day our needful bread…” — has a nice ring to it. This is an archaic word in modern English, which Asian Indians use to this day in “do the needful”, which is one of the most efficient phrases in the English language. It’s become the subject of memes, but I think it gets a bad rap — telescopes possibly several sentences into three short words.

 

[Harvester1867]

Very true! Great points

 

[John_Martin]

Beauty is not a valid argument to sidestep apostolic authority; James had no right nor did he succeed in publishing an English version of Scripture. He published a book over which readers are masters to figure their own meanings as they protestingly may desire in their vanity and modifying content at a whim of emotion.

Magisterial “ruling” did not choose the words and phrasing you praise, but they were chosen for protesting reasoning.

 

[ThomasMT]

Around 45:00 is where Dr. Hahn starts jumping into your question.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Beauty is not a valid argument to sidestep apostolic authority; James had no right nor did he succeed in publishing an English version of Scripture. He published a book over which readers are masters to figure their own meanings as they protestingly may desire in their vanity and modifying content at a whim of emotion.

Magisterial “ruling” did not choose the words and phrasing you praise, but they were chosen for protesting reasoning.

Well, perhaps, but at the end of the day, I will accept whatever the magisterial Church accepts.

I have not found all that many troubling things about the KJV, “repent” in lieu of “do penance” and “elders” in lieu of “priests” (though in the case of the latter, etymologically it means the same thing). I would gratefully accept a “Catholic King James”, if the Church ever sought to “baptize” the KJV by changing problematical words such as I noted above. However, absent a large number of tradition-minded Anglicans returning to Rome, that will probably never happen.

Just out of curiosity, along those lines, does the Anglican Ordinariate use the KJV? What Bible do they use for their lectionary?

 

[Fauken]

Just out of curiosity, along those lines, does the Anglican Ordinariate use the KJV? What Bible do they use for their lectionary?

I think it’s the RSV-2CE.

 

[EndTimes]

Any thoughts on the our father in the Douay Rheims as to why it mentioned the words ( super substantial bead) as apposed to our daily bread… as a catholic i believe in the true presence in the eucharist but was this what the text says in the original greek ? Or is there an obvious catholic bias here ?? Im sure this has been asked many times before

Catholic - Original Matthew was written in Aramaic or Hebrew…

The Douay-Rheims comes from the Latin Vulgate and not the Greek Translation.

 

[C.Ray]

I would gratefully accept a “Catholic King James”, if the Church ever sought to “baptize” the KJV by changing problematical words such as I noted above.

I think Challoner’s revision of Douay is the closest thing there could ever be to such a thing as a Catholic KJV. He did, after all, pilfer from the Authorized Version and wrote in a manner that Englishmen, steeped in the language of the KJV, would accept as “Biblical English.”

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

I would gratefully accept a “Catholic King James”, if the Church ever sought to “baptize” the KJV by changing problematical words such as I noted above.

I think Challoner’s revision of Douay is the closest thing there could ever be to such a thing as a Catholic KJV. He did, after all, pilfer from the Authorized Version and wrote in a manner that Englishmen, steeped in the language of the KJV, would accept as “Biblical English.”

I do like the Challoner DRV and have read it cover-to-cover, word-for-word. If you were to take a page chosen at random from Challoner, and a page chosen at random from the KJV, it would be very difficult to tell the difference — the main clue would be the proper names, which are more Latinized in Challoner and more Hebraic in the KJV. Challoner also doesn’t “flow” quite as smoothly as does the KJV, this due to its literal translation from the Latin. Even if I were not a Christian, I would have to acknowledge that the KJV is arguably the most beautiful exemplar of the classical English language.