Jump to content
IGNORED

Lord's Prayer Conundrum


unworthyservant

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  96
  • Topics Per Day:  0.06
  • Content Count:  645
  • Content Per Day:  0.38
  • Reputation:   298
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/11/2019
  • Status:  Offline

There's a little known (or at least rarely discussed) conundrum from the translation of the Lord's Prayer from the book of Matthew that's puzzled scholars for centuries and I thought I'd bring it up here as some might enjoy such deep dives into such things. I originally noted it in an answer to another post here and then noticed that post was a couple months old so I thought I'd make a new topic of it. It's the translation of the Greek word ἐπιούσιον or the transliterated epiousion at the end of the phrase that in the KJV reads "Give us this day our daily bread." It was translated "daily bread" but if you look back at ancient Greek texts, the actual word appears in NO other known Greek writings. It's only known use is in that very verse. (no where else in the NT either). Scholars as far back as the early Church writer Origen, have debated it's meaning and origin. Origen even went so far as to suggest it was just a word that the early church leaders or disciples (or even Matthew himself) made up. Some have surmised that it's a conglomeration of two Greek Words, transliterated epi and ousios. Then they jump through hoops to determine what the meaning of such an hereto unknown word conglomeration could possibly be. Although I'm not Catholic, I kinda like the interpretation of St. John Chrysostom the 4th century Archbishop of Constantinople who thought that the bread for which we pray is only “bread for today.” He said that "it is not for wastefulness or extravagant clothing that we pray, but only for bread and only for bread on a daily basis so as not to worry about tomorrow" This was at a time when many Catholic leaders insisted that it was about the Eucharist. This doesn't fly in my opinion since the word part "ousion" refers to substance of a thing or sustenance and so daily sustenance or daily bread wouldn't refer to the Eucharist as it's more general. This theory is derived from the fact that epi, when used alone actually is a comparative adverb that indicates excellence and so excellent sustenance or bread must be the Eucharist. Scholars to this day still can't find any empirical evidence of even the words existence much less it's meaning in any other ancient Greek writings and so still debate the word. With all that said, that's why it's good that we have Luke's version so as to gain a little insight. The early Greek versions of Luke's telling doesn't use epiousion but instead uses the Greek word ἄρτον or transliterated "arton" which is in the Greek actually a literal word for bread, which helps lead me to my conclusion to agree with St. John Chrysostom's commentary. That said, for those who enjoy looking at translation issues and the like there's a recent "re-translation" of the Lord's prayer from both Gospels on the web here:

https://readicon.com/lords-prayer-retranslation/2/

 

Sorry, didn't mean to get off on such a tangent but since I'm not so much concerned by the Pope's French translation change controversy, I thought I'd throw out another bone just for discussion and BTW, while I don't know much about the author of the linked discussion (from my research it seems he's written extensively on European history and is quite learned on it but this is the only Bible translation writing I can find) I did double check his facts with known and trusted sources and his research seems sound in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  35
  • Topic Count:  99
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  40,770
  • Content Per Day:  7.95
  • Reputation:   21,262
  • Days Won:  76
  • Joined:  03/13/2010
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  07/27/1957

This is not directed at the post so much as it is my understanding: when so little is discoverable it is safe to understand it in it's simple grammatical form and go no further. As with all study we are directed to let God's Word speak as it is written and to allow no imagination of self to interdict

2 Cor 10:5

5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
KJV


the problem with the eucharist is that it is trying to connect that which passes away with the everlasting...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  68
  • Topic Count:  185
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  14,204
  • Content Per Day:  3.35
  • Reputation:   16,629
  • Days Won:  30
  • Joined:  08/14/2012
  • Status:  Offline

Jesus said He is the bread of life, and that His words are spirit and life.  So while the Father knows we have need of daily physical food, we also need daily spiritual food, that of drawing near to our God and being infused with Life from Him.  That is our true strength for the day and our daily bread.

  • Thumbs Up 2
  • Praise God! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  96
  • Topics Per Day:  0.06
  • Content Count:  645
  • Content Per Day:  0.38
  • Reputation:   298
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/11/2019
  • Status:  Offline

12 hours ago, enoob57 said:

This is not directed at the post so much as it is my understanding: when so little is discoverable it is safe to understand it in it's simple grammatical form and go no further. As with all study we are directed to let God's Word speak as it is written and to allow no imagination of self to interdict

I agree and as I stated I have no qualms about the conundrum as the Gospel of Luke does say "bread" in plain language so I have no question about the translation accuracy, I just thought it a good mystery. (that should have no bearing on anyone's faith)

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  24
  • Topic Count:  40
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  1,459
  • Content Per Day:  0.61
  • Reputation:   2,377
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  08/23/2017
  • Status:  Offline

The Greek readings of both Matt 6:11 and Luke 11:3 are both well attested in antiquity.  The various modern edited Greek texts including TR, WH, NA, UBS, and others are all essentially identical for each verse.  

τον αρτον ημων τον επιουσιον δος ημιν σημερον  (Matt 6:11 TR1550)

τον αρτον ημων τον επιουσιον διδου ημιν το καθ ημεραν  (Luke 11:3 TR1550)

Note that αρτος (bread) directly appears in each of them.  The phrase "give us daily" or "give us each day" is slightly different the end of each phrase.  The phrase τον επιουσιον  is an adjective associated with τον αρτον ημων (our bread).    The entire phrase τον αρτον ημων τον επιουσιον clearly means "our epiousion bread" where we unfortunately do not have a clear definition of what this means.  Overall, translators are in agreement both verses basically mean "give us our epiousion bread each day" however there is no known definitive meaning for επιουσιος.   

The word επιουσιος seems to be unique to the NT and does not appear anywhere else in ancient Greek writings except quotations and paraphrases in early Christian writings.   As far as I can tell, the best guess is that someone in the early church coined a Greek work to translate an Aramaic word.   Without the use of the word in other contexts in other writings, it is difficult to directly ascertain what it meant.  This means that scholars and translators must take their best guess as to the intended meaning.  There seem to be two different ways translators approach the phrase τον επιουσιον.   The first goes back at least as far as the Latin Vulgate which basically treats it as a synonym for daily as do some of the church fathers.  This seems to have influenced translations for centuries as well as the memorized form of the Lord's Prayer.  The other is to use its most apparent literal meaning which is probably something like necessary or essential or sufficient.   As far as I can tell, translational inertia and the common usage of "give us this day our daily bread" in the Lord's Prayer seems to drive the choice of most English translators.  A more literal reading of "give us our necessary bread every day" seems to be becoming more common among translators.

The translation notes in the NetBible summarize this (https://netbible.org/bible/Matthew+6):   Matt 6:11 in the NetBible is "Give us today our daily bread" Or “Give us bread today for the coming day,” or “Give us today the bread we need for today.” and the translation note is:  the term ἐπιούσιος (epiousios) does not occur outside of early Christian literature (other occurrences are in Luke 11:3 and Didache 8:2), so its meaning is difficult to determine. Various suggestions include “daily,” “the coming day,” and “for existence.” See BDAG 376-77 s.v.; L&N 67:183, 206.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  96
  • Topics Per Day:  0.06
  • Content Count:  645
  • Content Per Day:  0.38
  • Reputation:   298
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/11/2019
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, GandalfTheWise said:

The various modern edited Greek texts including TR, WH, NA, UBS, and others are all essentially identical for each verse.  

You are correct that more modern edited versions are more identical. I'm referring to the oldest texts where the controversy started. From about the 4th or 5th century on they have settled on the versions you mention and there's really not as much difference. The controversy was begun as they tried to figure this out from what I understand.

1 hour ago, GandalfTheWise said:

τον επιουσιον

1 hour ago, GandalfTheWise said:

The entire phrase τον αρτον ημων τον επιουσιον clearly means "our epiousion bread" where we unfortunately do not have a clear definition of what this means.  Overall, translators are in agreement both verses basically mean "give us our epiousion bread each day" however there is no known definitive meaning for επιουσιος.

That's the heart of the question, the meaning of the actual word, not the phrase. I agree that the phrase "Daily bread" is a fine translation but I just like to research where phrases that seem literal in English come from and how their translation affects whether what we read is literal definition or best guess as to the intended meaning and then compare. You also make a good point that where I referred to the allusion of a "made up" word and neglected to mention the reason that would be. You said it much more clearly when you say "someone in the early church coined a Greek work to translate an Aramaic word" because as much as I talked about the Greek, we must remember that the 1st translation which was from Aramaic and that was just problematic if not more so for those writers.   

 

2 hours ago, GandalfTheWise said:

The other is to use its most apparent literal meaning which is probably something like necessary or essential or sufficient.

You are correct about the Latin Vulgate and the word daily which as I said I'm personally good with but the entire post was more about literal meaning. I do like the idea of necessary, essential, or sufficient better and is why I like St. John Chrysostom's thoughts that it's just asking for sustenance or essential actual "bread" or food and not for a feast. I'm bad about always using literal meanings when possible.   

 

On 9/16/2019 at 1:02 PM, unworthyservant said:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  24
  • Topic Count:  40
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  1,459
  • Content Per Day:  0.61
  • Reputation:   2,377
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  08/23/2017
  • Status:  Offline

8 hours ago, unworthyservant said:

You are correct that more modern edited versions are more identical. I'm referring to the oldest texts where the controversy started. From about the 4th or 5th century on they have settled on the versions you mention and there's really not as much difference. The controversy was begun as they tried to figure this out from what I understand.

I'd be curious to see the references for this.  The apparatus in the Nestle-Aland (NA) version is usually pretty good about indicating when there is conflicting older evidence for various readings.   It is interesting in the NA apparatus that both Luke 11:2 and 11:4 have extensive variations across manuscripts associated with them whereas Luke 11:3 has minimal variation.  This suggests that the textual tradition of 11:3 was much more stable than the verses on either side of it.  I typically use the NA apparatus (mainly because it's what I have access to) but am aware that the big critical apparatus publications (usually quite expensive and only owned by libraries) might have more.

As far as I can tell, manuscript P75 (commonly dated at late 2nd or early 3rd century) is one of the earliest existing manuscripts with that part of Luke.  It's a bit hard to read, but in this link http://www.csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA_P75?filter=1, the entire phrase τον αρτον ημων τον επιουσιον appears.  It starts at the end of the 8th line and continues into the 9th line.  The word  ημων is split across the lines and 1 letter is missing/obscured in the lacuna (missing section) at the left end of line 9.

As an aside, wow!!!!! it is so cool to be able to go online and see an image of something that was likely physically written around 1800 years ago and see the actual words and handwriting rather than a transcription.  The scribe who wrote it (or more likely his parents or grandparents) potentially could have met an old person who as a child heard one of the original apostles speak.   Fifty years ago, this manuscript was sitting in a private collection where only a few scholars could see it and now it's digitized and online for all of us to see.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  96
  • Topics Per Day:  0.06
  • Content Count:  645
  • Content Per Day:  0.38
  • Reputation:   298
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/11/2019
  • Status:  Offline

I did this research many years ago when online databases were free and most of my sources at that time were academic institutions (Cambridge has a wealth of texts) who at that time hosted their databases online. I have found more recently that these institutions are joining these new giant databases and search engines such as WordPress which are not very user friendly unless you know the new library numbering system (I guess the . I usually try and find the oldest reliable sources. I apologize but while I did look up the words again, most of my post was from my own old notes. I was over this entire dilemma years ago and just thought it an interesting tidbit that after all the scholarly discussion over the years still no one has a good definition for the actual word. As for the NA (or what we Baptists know as Novum Testamentum Graece) it is one of the better known, preserved and respected of the texts of the 19th century and is actually taken from three older commentaries. I also at times refer to the original Westcott & Hort or the Textus Receptus  but I don't believe that either of them have anything other than text similar to the NTG. The articles on which I based my text on were research done in more modern times which simply quoted the old texts and from my memory when I did check their accuracy I found very little either way, so couldn't comment on that. I had always been of the belief that those texts were the closest to accurate (and in most cases they do turn out to be) but once when researching the Lord's Prayer came across the things that I mentioned in my post. I'm always in awe at the way the writers in antiquity were able to translate and comment on things with such accuracy despite the lack of modern technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  96
  • Topics Per Day:  0.06
  • Content Count:  645
  • Content Per Day:  0.38
  • Reputation:   298
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/11/2019
  • Status:  Offline

3 hours ago, GandalfTheWise said:

As far as I can tell, manuscript P75 (commonly dated at late 2nd or early 3rd century) is one of the earliest existing manuscripts with that part of Luke.  

I just checked it out it's not only cool but the site looks very promising. I saved it and will use it. There's also a place online called Bible Researcher that I oft access. It's actually different texts from different modern authors who quote old texts which you then have to research on your own and while it doesn't have cool old stuff like that there are interesting articles(with varying views which makes me believe it's legit). The online old texts like that one are the things that in my online days we could only read about and never see for real! Ain't technology great? Just makes one appreciate the writers in antiquity even more.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  25
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  300
  • Content Per Day:  0.18
  • Reputation:   79
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  09/13/2019
  • Status:  Offline

The Lord's Prayer is a model ("Pray then like this") and as such invites the question, "In what ways are its components normative?"  The pcholarly consesnsus is that the petition in question should be translated "Give us today are bread for the coming day ("epiousia").  Remember. the prayer was originally uttered in Aramaic, not Greek.  As a model this petition is not urging us to pray for nutritional bread as opposed to fish or vegetables; it is urging us the pray that our basic needs be met.  But more subtly, it is warning us that our prayers have a very short  warrantee!  I don' get to ask for my basic needs to be met for an entire year; I need to renew my petition daily because I can't count on it being effective for more than tomorrow.  This is one of many reasons why Jesus urges not "Ask and you shall receive, seek and you will find," etc., but rather "Keep on asking and you will receive, keep on seeking and you will find," etc.  (The Greek imperatives require the nuance of continual action.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...