Talk:Matthew 6:11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Recent changes[edit]

I just reverted a set of recent changes. The main problem is that they replaced the cites to a series of scholarly works with ones directly to the text. I have no ability myself to judge the accuracy of the Greek translations, but I do know that doing our own translation and textual commentary is original research. We should only be including facts that can be referenced to reliable secondary sources. - SimonP (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I've reverted for reasons noted. There is zero original translation (on my part) in the many scholarly cites given. The now-current version is vastly more factually based than that prior set of uncited commentary that was strewn with POV, rather than (now) referenced linguistic facts. See & read the references given...slow down...and Seek the Truth. --2602:306:BC24:8C00:7C9E:3940:E204:4980 (talk) 03:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cf. my throwing up of hands. Theodoxa (talk) 05:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point out the uncited POV in the older version? I'm happy to remove any of that. For this current version I see only a single cite that meets Wikipedia's standards. A cite directly to the Bible is original research, and a 19th century dictionary has long been superseded by better sources. - SimonP (talk) 11:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The uncited POV would be all the statements of "meaning" that had no citation. You are not the arbiter of references, and current translations of epiousious are per the honorable citations given. Please stop deleting cited edits. Moreover, what are you referring to as a 19th century "dictionary"...? The Vulgate...? Why are you editing something that you clearly do not understand and have not taken the time to read the references for...? Seek the Truth. --2602:306:BC24:8C00:7C9E:3940:E204:4980 (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The 19th century dictionary is Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott's A Greek-English Lexicon. The content you are deleting has cites to works by Eugene Boring, Eduard Schweizer, W. D. Davies, Dale Allison, Ulrich Luz, and William Hendriksen. All of them are major New Testament scholars. Your version has no cites to any scholarly works. - SimonP (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Liddell as you wish. But I think Jerome would take issue with your claim re. his scholarship. --2602:306:BC24:8C00:7C9E:3940:E204:4980 (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jerome is certainly not a valid source for anything other than his own opinions. Have a look at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. We are looking for valid secondary sources, such as academic works. Jerome did not engage in Biblical scholarship as we today understand it. Content in Wikipedia needs valid sources, which this current version lacks almost entirely. You also need to justify why you want to delete material from the valid sources that are in the older version. Do you not consider them valid? If so why?- SimonP (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly do not know what you speak of. As yet another example, test question for you: the Greek Bible references I list come from what source? (Answer: Novum Testamentum Graece...the primary modern-day Biblical Greek source document...for scholars). Get educated. And Seek the Truth (rather than the inflation of your own ego). --2602:306:BC24:8C00:7C9E:3940:E204:4980 (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at Wikipedia:No original research "any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Even the best Greek source document is not a valid reference in Wikipedia. I'm happy to work together to improve this article the old version certainly wasn't perfect. As a start I'd like to know why you want the content sourced to the scholarly books removed? - SimonP (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to the Bible, the primary source material is Novum Testamentum Graece, which I've relied entirely upon other translators for. I've exercised zero original research in that regard. The books you claim to reference are just opinions as well. Bear in mind through all of this that epiousios certainly does not translate to "daily"...so keep the big picture. My suggestion is that you create a new section after translation and interpretation (retaining "interpretation" for reasons of the previous sentence), perhaps named Alternative Meanings (or such). Some of them may have merit as discussion topics/food-for-thought. --2602:306:BC24:8C00:7C9E:3940:E204:4980 (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the works of others are opinions, but opinions of scholars are exactly what we want in Wikipedia. As the older version makes clear, there isn't one opinion of this verse but several, and the goal should be to present each of them. To start can we add back the cite to Boring that the supersubstantial translation is implausible? Is Boring biased? Probably, he is a Protestant theologian, but he's is also a well regarded scholar, and we should present more than just the Catholic interpretation. - SimonP (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
His opinion goes against a vast amount of consensus and years of expert study, and so belongs in an "Alternative Meanings" section. I'm open to including other interpretations in the same vein. As to your last statement, please try to avoid emotional hyperbole -- other interpretations besides Catholic are presented here, and Novum Testamentum Graece is not a Catholic-sourced document; they collaborate and have a seat on the book's committee, but this is principally...today...a Protestant-sourced document. And to their credit. --2602:306:BC24:8C00:7C9E:3940:E204:4980 (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I've read it the scholarly consensus is that without more evidence we can't really know what the word means. Most present the various options. I see three basic interpretations of this verse, the literal, the eschatological, and the eucharistic. What if we divide the article into three sections, each exploring an interpretation and the various translations of epiousios that inform them? - SimonP (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus by sheer numbers of followers is by far the Catholic Church...though at the same time I will readily state that it is the common-man's over-emotional attachment to the near-illiterate "daily" -- dating back to Vetus Latina and the Vulgate where Jerome clearly indulged the masses -- that has gotten us into this mess. In any case, would suggest following their naming-protocol for the subtopics: "Temporal," "Qualitative" and "Literal." The eschatological is a modern-day fad, IMHO, and an esoteric label that simply does not engage most readers. Big picture: the Wikipedia reader will best-benefit from an educational approach that is fact-based, and particularly in-sequence for historical developments. --2602:306:BC24:8C00:7C9E:3940:E204:4980 (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revised section[edit]

Here is a draft for a new section on the eucharistic interpretation. I've added a few new sources, inclduing Ayo and Ptire who are both Catholic scholars. Let me know if you see any issues:

The problem of epiousios was noted as early as Origen, who felt term was a neologism created by the gospel writers. He interpreted the word as meaning "necessary for existence."[1] Following this linguistic parsing, Jerome translated "ἐπιούσιον" (epiousios) as supersubstantialem in the Gospel of Matthew. This itself is a new word, not before seen in Latin.[2]
This translation has often been connected to the eucharist. The bread necessary for existence is the communion bread of the Last Supper. That the gospel writers needed to create a new word indicates to Eugene LaVerdiere that they are describing something new. Eating the communion bread at the last supper needed a new word.[3]
This wide-ranging difference with respect to meaning of epiousios is discussed in detail in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church by way of an inclusive approach toward tradition as well as a literal one for meaning:

"Taken in a temporal sense, this word is a pedagogical repetition of "this day," to confirm us in trust "without reservation." Taken in the qualitative sense, it signifies what is necessary for life, and more broadly every good thing sufficient for subsistence. Taken literally (epi-ousios: "super-essential"), it refers directly to the Bread of Life, the Body of Christ, the "medicine of immortality," without which we have no life within us."[4]

This interpretation was also central to the Bogomil sect. In Bulgarian Bibles to this day, epiousios is translated as daily substantial.[5]
Barclay M. Newman's A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament, published in a revised edition in 2010 by the United Bible Societies has the following entry:
ἐπι|ούσιος, ον (εἰμί) of doubtful meaning, for today; for the coming day; necessary for existence[6] It thus derives the word from the preposition ἐπί (epi) and the verb εἰμί (eimi), from the latter of which are derived words such as οὐσία (ousia), the range of whose meanings is indicated in A Greek-English Lexicon.[7]
This interpretation was supported by early writers such as Augustine, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyprian of Carthage, John Cassian[8][2] and it is still a part of Catholic doctrine. The connection to the eucharist is rejected by most current scholars. Brant Pitre notes that "it receives virtually no support among modern exegetes."[2] Boring notes that the connection with the eucharist is ahistoric as the ritual only developed some time after the Gospel was written and the author of Matthew does not seem to have any knowledge of or interest in the rituals of the eucharist..[9] Craig Blomberg agrees that these "concepts had yet to be introduced when Jesus gave his original prayer and therefore could not have been part of his original meaning."[10] Buttrick summarizes the consensus that "for centuries the church interpreted epiousios sacramentally: Bread was Eucharist. But the word does not refer to eucharistic bread."[11]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Douglas E. Oakman (1 January 2008). Jesus and the Peasants. Wipf and Stock Publishers. pp. 217–. ISBN 978-1-59752-275-5.
  2. ^ a b c Brant Pitre (23 November 2015). Jesus and the Last Supper. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. pp. 159–. ISBN 978-1-4674-4404-0.
  3. ^ Eugene LaVerdiere (1996). The Eucharist in the New Testament and the Early Church. Liturgical Press. pp. 9–. ISBN 978-0-8146-6152-9.
  4. ^ http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p4s2a3.htm
  5. ^ Georgi Vasilev (17 October 2007). Heresy and the English Reformation: Bogomil-Cathar Influence on Wycliffe, Langland, Tyndale and Milton. McFarland. pp. 59–. ISBN 978-0-7864-8667-0.
  6. ^ Cf. Barclay M. Newman, A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, United Bible Societies 2010 ISBN 978-3-438-06019-8. Partial preview
  7. ^ Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon: οὐσία
  8. ^ Nicholas Ayo (2002). The Lord's Prayer: A Survey Theological and Literary. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 59–. ISBN 978-0-7425-1453-9.
  9. ^ Boring, Eugene "Gospel of Matthew." The New Interpreter's Bible, volume 8 Abingdon, 1995
  10. ^ Craig L. Blomberg (5 March 2015). Neither Poverty nor Riches: A Biblical Theology of Possessions. InterVarsity Press. pp. 131–. ISBN 978-0-8308-9933-3.
  11. ^ David Buttrick (2002). Speaking Jesus: Homiletic Theology and the Sermon on the Mount. Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 147–. ISBN 978-0-664-22602-2.

Comments to the above:

You should expect such a submission to be heavily edited. The ending paragraph begins with weasel words ("most current scholars"), and cites one man's opinion in so-doing. And it is absolutely illogical to suggest that the final words should even be included; the fact that the Lord's Prayer adjective-reference for bread (eucharist) precedes actual celebration of the eucharist is highly dubious "logic" as to how Matthew 6:11 can't be referencing the eucharist. Overall, I find this dismissive-with-intent, disrespectful even, of the largest Christian community. A non-starter. --2602:306:BC24:8C00:347E:F4B:AF4C:C45D (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notably, since you've stated at your own initiative from early on that you do not have a strong grasp of this subject-matter, it seems apparent from both your continuing to strike cited facts and push a particular POV that you are here principally for the latter. Succinctly-asked: if that's not true, why are you editing a topic you are so weak on by your own statements? --2602:306:BC24:8C00:347E:F4B:AF4C:C45D (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. I've added more specifics to the start of the section, and a few other references to scholars who reject the eucharistic interpretation. It doesn't matter what our opinions of the interpretation are, the anti-eucharistic view is held by many scholars, both Catholic and non-Catholic, and should thus be included. Is there anything else that you think needs to be done to this section, before we move on to the other ones? - SimonP (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this is your idea of collaboration, it appears we aren't capable of doing so. And amongst the many other gross problems with this POV you're drafting, weasel words won't cut it...ever...as being appropriate on Wikipedia. --2602:306:BC24:8C00:81D2:324D:A0AE:AC84 (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be more specific? I'm sure working together we can get an article better than either previous version. What specifically needs to be changed in your opinion? If there are more weasel words, I'm happy to fix them. Do you have problems with any of the sources used? - SimonP (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a section on the escatological interpretations to the main article. Let me know what you think. - SimonP (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added a section on the literal interpretation. Does this one make sense to you? I also moved the initial discussion on epiousios to a header section. I cited the hemeran line to a secondary source, rather than the individual verses- SimonP (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daily[edit]

Could you explain this line:

A more difficult matter for the "daily" interpretation is that while epiousios is often substituted by the word "daily," all other New Testament translations from the Greek into "daily" otherwise reference hemeran

How is this a difficulty? Why is it not possible that two different Greek words both translate to the English word daily? - SimonP (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you've stated, you don't have a solid grasp of Greek. That is a difficulty. You may want to consider editing topics you have a better grasp of and actually have some expertise in. By your statements, this isn't one of them. --2602:306:BC24:8C00:85D7:3570:8067:DC2F (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know Greek, but I've read a dozen or so secondary sources and none of them present this as an issue. As it is presented the logic doesn't follow for how it is a problem. Could you give some evidence that backs up this assertion? - SimonP (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Matthew_6:11&oldid=1203922798"