the full line being “Give us today our epiousion bread”
Today, most scholars reject the translation of epiousion as meaning daily. The word daily only has a weak connection to any proposed etymologies for epiousion. Moreover, all other instances of “daily” in the English New Testament translate hemera (ἡμέρα, “day”), which does not appear in this usage.[1][2] Because there are several other Greek words based on hemera that mean daily, no reason is apparent to use such an obscure word as epiousion.[4] The daily translation also makes the term redundant, with “this day” already making clear the bread is for the current day.[21]
i don’t think wikipedia mentions this but it has ‘pious’ in the middle
It was an oral history in one language, written down into another by low quality scribes, then translated a couple more times.
Which is why it’s always hilarious people say they have to take any translation literally.
But you don’t understand! This translation was divinely inspired! Every other one is an act of heresy and blasphemy!
Catholics go one step further. Both the translation and the tradition of interpreting the translation is divinely inspired. Protestants sometimes vaguely point to something like that but most realize that if they follow the logic train of sacred tradition they should be Catholic or Orthodox.
The book was produced by the tradition. If the tradition is junk, then why would the book not be junk too?
This is one thing that atheists often get wrong about Catholicism. Catholics don’t believe sola scriptura, the Protestant principle that all Christian tradition is to be rooted in the text of the Bible. Thus, “Bible contradictions” and the like are not rebuttals to Catholic views the way they are to “fundamentalist” Protestant views.
I’m an atheist ex protestant, but I generally agree with that theological view. I think Protestantism is very inconsistent in that regard and most arguments amount to hand waving. In the end, though, all denominations pick and choose when councils had sufficient authority to be binding tradition. Unless they’re gnostics or some other type of anti-pauIine Christian guess.
Unless they realize that each new interpretation is Divinely inspired. In which case the most recent one is the truest, Tradition is dead, and also the Divine changes Her mind a lot.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses have an update process they call “progressive revelation” so that they can keep retconning their doomsday prophecies.
It’s a two-thousand-year-long multilingual game of Telephone. How much is it even possible is left from what was originally written? (And none of it contemporary to when it supposedly happened.)
Textual critics are fairly confident that a fair amount of the texts of the New Testament were reliably copied until we get to the first extant manuscripts, and for the stuff that is very obviously messed up, they have a decent set of analytical tools that help them retroject the likeliest original wording. Not perfect, but decent.
And now we have even better scientific tools that allow us to retroject all the miracles, incorrect dates, absurdly inaccurate numbers/measurements, and the authenticity (very foundation) of it’s stories. Proving that it is all fiction.
Reminder: Until the 1800s no Christian believed that the world was older than about 6000. If you went back in time and spoke to literally any Christian at that time and said you were both Christian and believed that the earth was billions of years old they would definitely say that you’re a liar: You’re not a Christian. You would be declared a heretic.
That’s not how translation works though. The modern translations come directly from the original Greek and Aramaic.
epiousion was greek for sliced
And we’ve been comparing how good other things are to it ever since
Also known by one of the most badass-sounding terms in lexicography: the HAPAX LEGOMENON
Now it occurs in a post on lemmy
And so shall it echo across the fediverse, amen
If I remember correctly, there’s a group of scholars that translate it as “appropriate.”
Fun story! They came to that conclusion because they discovered a text which had what they believed was another very similar word (“epiousi”) that, in context, meant “necessary” or “enough for now.” That text was a shopping list.
Then the text got lost for a long time, and when they found it again, new eyes on it realized that they’d misread the word, so it was back to square one.
Some denominations, Eastern Orthodox in particular, do translate it as “our needed bread, give us today”
Bakers, however, translate it as “our kneaded bread”
Loaf is all we knead
Great song from the flour-power era.
Give us this appropriate our appropriately bread…
“How do you like your bread?”
“Appropriate”
deleted by creator
I have only this moment realised that the prayer is referencing the xtian communion giving of bread symbolism, and not just randomly demanding food as if the writer was hungry
Is it, though? Or is it saying “Give us our basic staple needs”? It would be useful if a theologian could chip in on the dates, but I suspect this prayer predates bready communion
From my brief and poorly remembered Christian education, there were at least 3 occasions where the Big J handed out food and drink, and made explicit connection between his god powers, and the catering. So the idea was there in some form from at least the writing of the gospels. But yeah, it would be good to hear from someone who actually knows what they’re talking about.
I’ve heard this as a reference to the bread that was given to the Israelites in the wilderness - manna. In Exodus, the Israelites are instructed to gather and prepare it each day. In the exegesis of that connection, I believe it is Jesus encouraging believers to trust in God for his provision daily.
Let me tell you, 10 year old me in catholic school really thought he was on to some comedy gold when he realized this day and daily was some confusing shit.
Nobody ever laughed. Turned out, I’m not really funny.
Scribes generally do a good job of checking that they didn’t make an error in transcription . It like likely that what we have is what was written down around ad40-ad90. (Years approximate). Things were written mostly by eyewitness or those who interviewed eye witnesses. The whole reads like it.
Of course things were translated to Greek, it is unlikely that the words were spoken in that language.
Things were written mostly by eyewitness or those who interviewed eye witnesses.
The scholarly consensus is that this is not the case. The earliest written Gospel (Mark) couldn’t have been written any earlier than the occupation of the Temple during the First Jewish Revolt in 66-67, and all indications are that he was writing down traditions that came from his community and others, with no immediate connection to any “eyewitnesses.”
(Source: I have a PhD in this stuff.)
If I remember right, the reason why Mark has scholarly consensus as being written before John is that Mark is least theologically developed, which only really makes sense as evidence for that if you’re starting from the position that the theological bits are later additions. I remember Q and M as evidence for Mark before Matthew or Luke, but is there any evidence that Mark was written before John that doesn’t start with the position that more-developed theology is a later addition?
Why am I being downvoted for asking someone with a PhD in this topic a question about their expertise?
Ooooooh - what’s your opinion on the Secret Gospel of Mark? I’m an ex-xtian that copes with the indignity of being indoctrinated into fundamentalism at a young age by devoting way too much of my time into secular lay research into varieties of early Christianity.
PhD in what? Tell me about your opinion on the secret gospel. Not a trap. Just love this shit.
Literally every statement in your comment is false. Read a fucking book that isn’t the bible.
