In the breviary we are currently reading St Cyprian’s commentary on the Lord’s prayer. It is a prayer shared by and prized by all Christians. Few if any have not committed to memory.Posted on 06/21/2013 2:44:12 PM PDT by NYer
In the breviary we are currently reading St Cyprian’s commentary on the Lord’s prayer. It is a prayer shared by and prized by all Christians. Few if any have not committed to memory.
Yet within the Lord’s prayer is a mysterious word that both Greek and Biblical scholars have little agreement over or even a clear understanding of in terms of its precise meaning. Most Christians who do not read Greek are unaware of the difficulties and debate surrounding the word. They simply accept that the most common English translation of the Our Father is undisputed. To them the problem is largely unknown.
The mysterious word occurs right in the middle of the prayer: τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον (ton arton hēmōn ton epiousion) which is rendered most usually as “give us this day our daily bread.”
The problematic word is epiousion. The difficulty is that the word seems to exist nowhere else in ancient Greek and that no one really knows what it means. Even the Greek Fathers who spoke and wrote Greek as their mother-tongue were unaware of its exact meaning. It occurs no where else in the Bible (with the exception of the parallel passage in Luke’s version of the Our Father in Luke 11:3). It appears nowhere in wider Greek literature, whether Christian or Pagan. The early Church Father Origen, a most learned and well read man, thought that Matthew and Luke, or the early Church had “made up” or coined the term.
So, frankly, we are at a loss as to the exact and original meaning of this word! It’s actually pretty embarrassing when you think of it. Right there in the most memorable text of Christendom is a word whose meaning seems quite uncertain.
Now, to be sure, over the centuries there have been many theories and positions as to what this word is getting at. Let’s look at a few.
So when we have a Greek word that is used no where else and when such important and determinative Fathers struggle to understand it and show forth rather significant disagreement, we are surely left at a loss. It seems clear that we have something of a mystery.
Reverencing the Mystery – But perhaps the Lord intended that we should ponder this text and see a kind of multiple meaning. Surely it is right that we should pray for our worldly food. Likewise we should pray for all that is needed for subsistence, whether just for today or for tomorrow as well. And surely we should ask for the Bread of Life, the Holy Eucharist which is the necessary Bread that draws us to eternal life and which (Who) is over and above all earthly substances.
So there it is, the hidden and mysterious word in the middle of the Our Father. My own preference is to see that “epiousion” (supersubstantial) is a reference to the Eucharist. Jesus who super-abounds in all we could ask or want, said, “I am the Bread of life.” He is surely, in his Eucharistic presence, our Bread which super abounds.
Most modern translations have settled on the word “daily.” For the record, the Latin Liturgy also uses the word daily (quotidianum). But in truth no one word can capture what is said here. The Lord has left us a mystery to ponder.
“give us this day the needs of the body.”
FWIW, I have an Aramaic version translated to English.
Matthew 6:11 says “Give us bread for our needs from day to day”
Luke 11:3 says “Give us bread for our needs every day”
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articles/Jesus_Hebrew/jesus_hebrew.html
This webpage should help clear up some of your questions. You come closest to being right suggesting the possibility that Hebrew was primarily spoken in Jerusalem while a dialect of Aramaic was the language of Galilee. When Jesus spoke to his Galilean disciples it was most likely in Aramaic, but he was fluent in Hebrew and Greek. The Samaritans spoke Hebrew. When Jesus spoke to Paul on the road to Damascus it was in Hebrew. Paul was fluent in Hebrew, and he used it when addressing the people of Jerusalem.
I recently read an excellent paper on this subject, and I can’t find it, though it should have been stored on this computer. There is plenty of research that lays to rest the misconception that Aramaic was the only language, or even the primary language of most Jews during the time of Jesus. Hebrew was very much alive and well, and spoken as a common language, in addition to being the language of the Torah and the temple.
“This webpage should help clear up some of your questions.”
I didn’t have any questions in post #12. I have no idea what questions you’re talking about.
My apologies, I meant your suggestions.
Titus’s army, I believe was the 15th Roman Legion. Native Latin speakers? Just a guess.
My understanding is that Aramaic was the native language, Hebrew was the language of the synagog and Greek was the “lingua franca”- the language of commerce and trade. It was being supplanted by Latin at that time.
Sort of like modern Rome. Italian the native language, latin the language of the church, and English by those doing business with foreigners.
By the Middle Ages spoken Hebrew was a dead language. The grammar of modern Hebrew was adapted from Arabic - sister Semitic languages - and revived in Andalusia under Muslim rule when Jews were employed as functionaries by the rulers. They were literate, and since they were hated more by the Christians of that age than by their Muslim rulers they could be trusted to not betray their masters. One reason they were expelled or forced to convert (see: Conversos) in 1492 along with all Muslims from Reconquista Spain.
The grammar of modern Hebrew was adapted
What was wrong with the grammar of old Hebrew?
ping for later
Actually, the best reason for supposing that the gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew/Aramaic is the simple fact that numerous 2nd century AD sources say so, including Irenaeus and Papias.
I remember hearing about someone who was a Greek scholar on their first actual visit to Greece. They tried communicating with the locals and were mostly laughed at. They were speaking the language of Plato and Aristotle. Languages, all of them, change over time and distance.
Manna is the first thing to spring to my mind after reading through this. Manna from heaven, from the Lord above, superlative, bread, morning, it fits the known meanings of the apparent root words. Greek would lack a means of describing something that was apparently difficult to describe for those with direct exposure. Then, there’s the long association of manna with communion or the “Eucharist.”
My father grew up in a household of Swedish immigrants ( came over at the turn of the last century). My grandparants must have spoken Swedish in the house quite a bit because he had a pretty good grasp on the language.
We visited Sweden in the seventies and he was able to converse fairly well but all the Swedes just broke up listening to him because he was speaking, to their ears, an antique version of their langage.
The poor guy, we flew into Copenhagen. We checked into the hotel and he proudly spoke his antique Swedish (to the Danish hotel clerk). She smiled and said, “Mr. Anderson, we speak English here.
Several ancient sources attest to a gospel by the disciple Matthew as having been written in Aramaic, but with Hebrew letters.
Also, Aramaic is not the dead language people suppose. It persists today, among Syrian and Lebanese Christians. As I understand it, Hebrew is the language of the Jews (Judeans), whereas Aramaic was a language of the Gallileans and Samaritans. In the few places where Jesus’ language is retained in the gospels, it is Aramaic, yet Jesus certainly knew Hebrew as a rabbi who read scripture in the synagogue.
I wonder if anyone has used this word as the name of a hi tech company?! Or an anti-depressant? Web domain name?
I believe the Samaritans spoke Hebrew.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.