"daily bread" vs "supersubstantial bread"
#11
(06-21-2017, 11:28 PM)MaryLover Wrote: By the way, is there any other Bible translation, apart from the Douay-Rheims Version, that translates Epiousios correctly?

I would hesitate to say "correctly" (can you tell I'm in academia LOL), as it has puzzled commentators as far back as Origen. "Daily" was the dominant understanding in the Western Church in its earliest days and very well attested everywhere; it is not surprising if most follow it.

Pretty much every interpretation runs up against the problem that if it is a compound of epi and ousia, it violates the usual rules for forming compounds in Greek, which generally requires the final i in epi to be dropped for euphony. There are words that violate this rule, but who knows? When you come across a neologism, it's virtually impossible to be certain.

I personally, without advocating any change in the traditional forms, like the translation the Syriac tradition uses <laḥma d-sunqānan>, "the bread of our necessity/need." The attractiveness of this translation is that it covers multiple meanings: the literal need for food, and a figurative expression for our necessities more generally, and a mystical allusion to the Eucharist. This is similar to the Slavonic translation Klemens mentioned.
[-] The following 1 user Likes aquinas138's post:
  • TheLeastofThese
Reply
#12
(06-21-2017, 06:58 PM)aquinas138 Wrote: The Vetus Latina, the Latin Bible that preceded the Vulgate, had quotidianum (daily) in both Matthew and Luke. St. Jerome corrected Matthew but not Luke (depending on how much of the Vulgate NT is actually from his hand). The liturgical version of the Our Father most likely precedes the appearance of the Vulgate, and this is the reason you see quotidianum in the Mass.

The Roman rite, which was historically (especially before the 13th century) incredibly conservative, did not make it a habit to change scriptural allusions and phrases in the liturgy to match the Vulgate; there are many phrases that are from non-Vulgate readings of the Scriptures. The psalms themselves in the Breviary are from the Vulgate, except famously for Psalm 94 in the Invitatorium of Matins, which is still the Vetus Latina version; it IS the Vulgate version when it appears in the third nocturn of Matins on Epiphany.

Modern scholars are distrustful of the Patristic understanding of epiousios to mean "supernatural," i.e., the Eucharist, but this was basically universal among the Fathers; I tend to trust those closer in time, culture, and language to the NT authors than modern exegetes whose default position is "the Church can't be right."

What is famous about the two versions of psalm 94?
Reply
#13
(06-21-2017, 04:20 AM)JosefSilouan Wrote: The original word in Greek is "epiousios". There is in fact no 'correct' translation of this word, as it was never used in Greek language before the Gospels. It's a neologism. Hieroymous translated it as "super-substantial" in his Vulgata, which in my opinion is the most adecuate translation (epi = above; ousios = nature/being). Add to this the fact that the Jews in Jesus' time were expecting the arrival of a "new manna", a new "bread from above", that would arrive with the Messias. Being read in this way, it is a clear reference to the Eucharist. You can find this interpretation in both the Catechism and Benedict's "Jesus of Nazareth".

However, Catholic tradition translated this word as "daily" for centuries. This translation is not 'wrong', as there is no correct translation for a Neologism. We have to consider this interpretation as a valid, inpired reading of the text.

The best solution is to consider both interpretations valid at the same time....Catholicism always affirmed that scripture has a multi-layered meaning (-> 4 senses of scripture).

What are the four meanings?
Reply
#14
(06-23-2017, 03:45 PM)randomtradguy Wrote:
(06-21-2017, 06:58 PM)aquinas138 Wrote: The Vetus Latina, the Latin Bible that preceded the Vulgate, had quotidianum (daily) in both Matthew and Luke. St. Jerome corrected Matthew but not Luke (depending on how much of the Vulgate NT is actually from his hand). The liturgical version of the Our Father most likely precedes the appearance of the Vulgate, and this is the reason you see quotidianum in the Mass.

The Roman rite, which was historically (especially before the 13th century) incredibly conservative, did not make it a habit to change scriptural allusions and phrases in the liturgy to match the Vulgate; there are many phrases that are from non-Vulgate readings of the Scriptures. The psalms themselves in the Breviary are from the Vulgate, except famously for Psalm 94 in the Invitatorium of Matins, which is still the Vetus Latina version; it IS the Vulgate version when it appears in the third nocturn of Matins on Epiphany.

Modern scholars are distrustful of the Patristic understanding of epiousios to mean "supernatural," i.e., the Eucharist, but this was basically universal among the Fathers; I tend to trust those closer in time, culture, and language to the NT authors than modern exegetes whose default position is "the Church can't be right."

What is famous about the two versions of psalm 94?

Primarily that the Invitatorium is not the Vulgate.

If one is linguistically oriented, Psalm 94 is also an excellent example of how translating literally can lead to nonsensical language in the target language. In verse 11 of the Vulgate, we read at the end: iuravi in ira mea si intrabunt in requiem meam; in the Breviary it is jurávi in ira mea: si introíbunt in réquiem meam. The only difference is the verb intrabunt vs introibunt; these are homonyms, so there's no issue there; both mean "they will enter." What is curious is the word si, which means "if," giving the translation "I have sworn in my wrath: if they will enter into my rest." In context, this is a bit obscure — unless one knows the Hebrew that underlies the Greek that underlies the Vetus and the Vulgate. When making negative oaths, Hebrew begins a conditional, and then abruptly stops without the "then" clause (a phenomenon known as aposiopesis). The Septuagint translated this extremely literally, trying to capture every feature of the Hebrew, even if it doesn't make sense in Greek; the old Latin versions in turn copied the Greek in the same way!

When St. Jerome produced his third psalter, the juxta Hebraicum, directly from the Hebrew without reference to the Septuagint, he translated this as iuravi in furore meo ut non introirent in requiem meam ("I have sworn in my anger that they will not enter into my rest"), which is much more standard, classical Latinity. The exact reason he chose furor over ira, I'm not sure, but it is probably better classical diction.
Reply
#15
I did a similar reflection on the "Our Father" a few years ago. The instruction to me was to write on it and my first thought was "this has been done 1000's of times....what's the point" But I did anyway.
When I got to "give us this day, our daily bread" I was struck buy the curious nature of the wording and realized that Jesus was quoting scripture. I think it is fairly certain that Jesus was quoting from Exodus 16. So we have bread (manna) rained down from heaven to sustain God's chosen people. There is much profound and much in the way of prefigurement in this chapter. So we have bread rained down from heaven, a prefigure of the Eucharist. God himself feeding His people. I also got a shock when i realized that this manna was given to sustain His people in the Sinai desert. "Sinai" is translated to "desert of sin" or "wilderness of sin".  So we have "give us this day, our daily bread" a foreshadowing of perhaps, "go to Mass daily and receive the Eucharist so that you can be sustained in the desert of sin" WOW.. I am still challenged to do this and am failing more than succeeding. Oh ...and i am reminded daily . I hear that line from Hosea. " Come back to me with all your heart".
[-] The following 1 user Likes Panum's post:
  • MaryLover
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)