Panem nostrum Supersubstantialem/Quotidianum? The Lord's Prayer.

Started by Xavier, February 03, 2018, 10:49:59 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Xavier

The Fathers often point out Our Lord Jesus taught us to ask for the Eucharist, our true Super Substantial Bread, in the Lord's prayer itself. Anyone ever wondered why St. Matthew renders it as supersubstantial but St. Luke gives it as quotidianum/daily?

St. Matthew 6:11  Give us this day our supersubstantial bread.
St. Matthew 6:11  Panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie

St. Luke 11:3  Give us this day our daily bread.
St. Luke 11:3  Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie.
Bible verses on walking blamelessly with God, after being forgiven from our former sins. Some verses here: https://dailyverses.net/blameless

"[2] He that walketh without blemish, and worketh justice:[3] He that speaketh truth in his heart, who hath not used deceit in his tongue: Nor hath done evil to his neighbour: nor taken up a reproach against his neighbours.(Psalm 14)

"[2] For in many things we all offend. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man."(James 3)

"[14] And do ye all things without murmurings and hesitations; [15] That you may be blameless, and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation; among whom you shine as lights in the world." (Phil 2:14-15)

Livenotonevil

If memory recalls correctly, Saint Jerome - who translated the Bible from Greek to Latin (Vulgate) - specifically rendered the Greek word in Matthew "Epiousios" as "Supersubstantial."

The word "epiousios" (?????????), or as it is translated into English, "daily", is a "hapax legomenon", as in, it appears only in these two Gospels and nowhere else; and without proper context, is almost impossible to translate precisely. It means something along the lines of "essential for life" or "necessary."

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%90%CF%80%CE%B9%CE%BF%CF%8D%CF%83%CE%B9%CE%BF%CF%82

Saint Jerome specifically rendered the Gospel of Saint Matthew as "Supersubstantial" in order to clarify the Eucharistic connection - and my guess is that he spent extra effort on the more popular version of the Lord's Prayer, while simply translating the Greek version of Luke without much effort.
May God forgive me for my consistent sins of the flesh and any blasphemous and carnal desire, as well as forgive me whenever I act prideful, against the desire of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, to be a Temple of the Holy Spirit.

aquinas138

St. Jerome may not have chosen the wording in either case, as he revised the existing Vetus Latina versions of the Gospels, unlike some other books which he translated anew. My supposition is that the difference in translation was present in the Vetus Latina and simply followed by St. Jerome, who generally only changed things in the older versions that were clearly mistakes.

The Peshitta translates it the same way in both Gospels: lachm? d-sunq?nan, "the bread of our necessity," which was favored by Syriac theologians as covering all the meanings: our literal necessity for earthly bread, our need for continued subsistence, our need for the Eucharistic flesh of Christ, etc. I personally think "quotidianum" is a bit limiting, but it's hard to be too tough on the translation of a previously unattested word!
What shall we call you, O full of grace? * Heaven? for you have shone forth the Sun of Righteousness. * Paradise? for you have brought forth the Flower of immortality. * Virgin? for you have remained incorrupt. * Pure Mother? for you have held in your holy embrace your Son, the God of all. * Entreat Him to save our souls.

Daniel

edit - I found a copy of Cornelius a Lapide's Matthew commentary online, here: https://archive.org/stream/greatcommentaryo01lapi#page/268/mode/2up (that should already be at the right page)
a Lapide sort of implies that the old Latin rendered it "quotidianum" in both gospels, but that St. Jerome changed it in Matthew so it would be truer to the Greek. (Though I see no mention of why he changed it only in Matthew, and not in both places.)

aquinas138

Quote from: Daniel on February 04, 2018, 06:47:23 AM
edit - I found a copy of Cornelius a Lapide's Matthew commentary online, here: https://archive.org/stream/greatcommentaryo01lapi#page/268/mode/2up (that should already be at the right page)
a Lapide sort of implies that the old Latin rendered it "quotidianum" in both gospels, but that St. Jerome changed it in Matthew so it would be truer to the Greek. (Though I see no mention of why he changed it only in Matthew, and not in both places.)

It's difficult to know which way to go on that. It's hard to see St. Jerome changing the wording if it were already enshrined in the liturgy and hearts of Roman Christians as quotidianum, especially if he weren't doing it in Luke as well. I guess I would want to look at how often St. Jerome coined neologisms (which supersubstantialem would be). I know there are places where the Vetus Latina had neologisms that St. Jerome removed, considering them to be barbarisms.

It is also the case that St. Jerome could slavishly follow the LXX (which was the papal request, after all), as in Psalm 94:11, where he repeats the (in Latin, as in Greek) nonsensical ?? ????????????? ??? ??? ?????????? ??? by translating si intrabunt in requiem meam ("if they will enter into my rest"). He knew full well that behind the LXX was a Hebrew idiom that means "they will not enter into my rest," but repeated the LXX verbatim. I'm sure the pre-Vulgate versions did this, and St. Jerome simply kept it since the psalms were well-established in the Churches - the pre-Vulgate form of the psalms continued to be used in the Roman basilicas until the 20th century! Interesting, though, that he could change the wording of the Oratio Dominica, but not the Psalter!
What shall we call you, O full of grace? * Heaven? for you have shone forth the Sun of Righteousness. * Paradise? for you have brought forth the Flower of immortality. * Virgin? for you have remained incorrupt. * Pure Mother? for you have held in your holy embrace your Son, the God of all. * Entreat Him to save our souls.

Daniel

Quote from: aquinas138 on February 05, 2018, 11:42:48 AM
Quote from: Daniel on February 04, 2018, 06:47:23 AM
edit - I found a copy of Cornelius a Lapide's Matthew commentary online, here: https://archive.org/stream/greatcommentaryo01lapi#page/268/mode/2up (that should already be at the right page)
a Lapide sort of implies that the old Latin rendered it "quotidianum" in both gospels, but that St. Jerome changed it in Matthew so it would be truer to the Greek. (Though I see no mention of why he changed it only in Matthew, and not in both places.)

It's difficult to know which way to go on that. It's hard to see St. Jerome changing the wording if it were already enshrined in the liturgy and hearts of Roman Christians as quotidianum, especially if he weren't doing it in Luke as well. I guess I would want to look at how often St. Jerome coined neologisms (which supersubstantialem would be). I know there are places where the Vetus Latina had neologisms that St. Jerome removed, considering them to be barbarisms.

It is also the case that St. Jerome could slavishly follow the LXX (which was the papal request, after all), as in Psalm 94:11, where he repeats the (in Latin, as in Greek) nonsensical ?? ????????????? ??? ??? ?????????? ??? by translating si intrabunt in requiem meam ("if they will enter into my rest"). He knew full well that behind the LXX was a Hebrew idiom that means "they will not enter into my rest," but repeated the LXX verbatim. I'm sure the pre-Vulgate versions did this, and St. Jerome simply kept it since the psalms were well-established in the Churches - the pre-Vulgate form of the psalms continued to be used in the Roman basilicas until the 20th century! Interesting, though, that he could change the wording of the Oratio Dominica, but not the Psalter!
I really don't know much about it, but I am under the impression that he did change things that were already enshrined in the liturgy? For exanmple, the Mass has Gloria in excelsis Deo (which I'm guessing is how it was rendered in the Old Latin, and presumably it was already part of the Mass in St. Jerome's time), yet St. Jerome has translated it as Gloria in altissimis Deo. Likewise the Pater noster in the liturgy has quotidianum but is otherwise identical to the version found in St. Luke's gospel. Makes me think that the one in the liturgy is its original form (from the Old Latin), already in use in St. Jerome's day, and that it was St. Jerome who changed it. Just speculating, but maybe he thought a neologism was appropriate in this context since the Greek itself used a neologism? Or maybe he just didn't think that quotidianum sufficiently conveyed the sense of the Greek?

aquinas138

Quote from: Daniel on February 05, 2018, 01:59:58 PM
Quote from: aquinas138 on February 05, 2018, 11:42:48 AM
Quote from: Daniel on February 04, 2018, 06:47:23 AM
edit - I found a copy of Cornelius a Lapide's Matthew commentary online, here: https://archive.org/stream/greatcommentaryo01lapi#page/268/mode/2up (that should already be at the right page)
a Lapide sort of implies that the old Latin rendered it "quotidianum" in both gospels, but that St. Jerome changed it in Matthew so it would be truer to the Greek. (Though I see no mention of why he changed it only in Matthew, and not in both places.)

It's difficult to know which way to go on that. It's hard to see St. Jerome changing the wording if it were already enshrined in the liturgy and hearts of Roman Christians as quotidianum, especially if he weren't doing it in Luke as well. I guess I would want to look at how often St. Jerome coined neologisms (which supersubstantialem would be). I know there are places where the Vetus Latina had neologisms that St. Jerome removed, considering them to be barbarisms.

It is also the case that St. Jerome could slavishly follow the LXX (which was the papal request, after all), as in Psalm 94:11, where he repeats the (in Latin, as in Greek) nonsensical ?? ????????????? ??? ??? ?????????? ??? by translating si intrabunt in requiem meam ("if they will enter into my rest"). He knew full well that behind the LXX was a Hebrew idiom that means "they will not enter into my rest," but repeated the LXX verbatim. I'm sure the pre-Vulgate versions did this, and St. Jerome simply kept it since the psalms were well-established in the Churches - the pre-Vulgate form of the psalms continued to be used in the Roman basilicas until the 20th century! Interesting, though, that he could change the wording of the Oratio Dominica, but not the Psalter!
I really don't know much about it, but I am under the impression that he did change things that were already enshrined in the liturgy? For exanmple, the Mass has Gloria in excelsis Deo (which I'm guessing is how it was rendered in the Old Latin, and presumably it was already part of the Mass in St. Jerome's time), yet St. Jerome has translated it as Gloria in altissimis Deo. Likewise the Pater noster in the liturgy has quotidianum but is otherwise identical to the version found in St. Luke's gospel. Makes me think that the one in the liturgy is its original form (from the Old Latin), already in use in St. Jerome's day, and that it was St. Jerome who changed it. Just speculating, but maybe he thought a neologism was appropriate in this context since the Greek itself used a neologism? Or maybe he just didn't think that quotidianum sufficiently conveyed the sense of the Greek?

That's a good point with the Gloria; I forgot about that one. It is hardly a straightforward question!
What shall we call you, O full of grace? * Heaven? for you have shone forth the Sun of Righteousness. * Paradise? for you have brought forth the Flower of immortality. * Virgin? for you have remained incorrupt. * Pure Mother? for you have held in your holy embrace your Son, the God of all. * Entreat Him to save our souls.

Xavier

Thanks, all. I wondered originally if it had anything to do with St. Matthew first writing in Aramaic, as a Hebrew to the Hebrews, as many Fathers testify; (the Greek we have is a copy, St. Jerome had access to many of the originals when he translated) and St. Luke in Greek later as a Gentile to Gentiles. I now see that's most likely not the case.

It seems both texts have epiousious as per the Greek texts we have. Anyway, the meaning of both is similar and we do use quotidianum in the liturgy. I personally like supersubstantialem because it more expressly raises our minds to the Bread of Life; the Bread beyond all substance; the Bread Who is God Himself. Nevertheless, quotidianum also teaches us to pray for our daily bread, including temporal necessities, while implying the Bread of the Eucharist.
Bible verses on walking blamelessly with God, after being forgiven from our former sins. Some verses here: https://dailyverses.net/blameless

"[2] He that walketh without blemish, and worketh justice:[3] He that speaketh truth in his heart, who hath not used deceit in his tongue: Nor hath done evil to his neighbour: nor taken up a reproach against his neighbours.(Psalm 14)

"[2] For in many things we all offend. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man."(James 3)

"[14] And do ye all things without murmurings and hesitations; [15] That you may be blameless, and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation; among whom you shine as lights in the world." (Phil 2:14-15)